Journal des débats 1998-déc-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 88, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I think it's appropriate and a very good omen today that this bill is up for debate on International Human Rights Day. We have a chance today to recognize the human rights of all persons within Ontario and bring Ontario in line with the UN conventions on human rights and rights of the child and the Canadian charter.

I want to start by recognizing some of the people in the gallery from the adoption community, and in the members' gallery as well, and thank them for their 25 years of hard work in trying to get adoption reform in Ontario. We owe them quite a debt of gratitude.

I also want to acknowledge Holly Kramer, who is the president of Parent Finders Inc, who played a very important part of my life in helping me reunite with my son, Bill, who is also here today sitting in the members' gallery. It's a real pleasure to be debating this bill with him here today.

You all know my personal story by now, so I'm not going to dwell on it. As you know, it's been a very happy story for me and Bill and his parents. We've all become friends and our lives have been enriched by this reunion. But this bill today is not about me or for me - I reached the completion a few years ago in my search for my son - but for all the people, some of whom are in the gallery today, the thousands of people who are out there and have been searching for their biological relatives for years.

I also want to thank Tony Martin for allowing me to use his private member's bill from 1994, which I was involved in at that time and which, as you know, almost passed in the House, but the House prorogued at midnight and did not come back and it died on the order paper. I particularly want to thank Alex Cullen, who just recently in June, I believe, introduced a private member's bill. Although it went further than mine, I introduced Tony Martin's bill because, after talking to members in the House, I felt that the most consensus could be reached on this bill that I introduced today.

Bill 88 represents almost 25 years of consultation with the adoption community and reflects a consensus among those directly affected and concurs with academic findings and the recommendations of two major government commissions. In addition, they reflect the findings of four cross-province consultations with representatives from the adoption community. Britain passed similar legislation in the 1970s and the Northwest Territories on November 1; in fact this kind of legislation, similar legislation, has been passed in jurisdictions around the world.

This bill basically does one major thing: It gives adult adoptees the same right as every other person in Ontario to have access to their personal birth information. When a child is placed for adoption, the birth certificate is altered and the original birth certificate is sealed. The system that we have in place now does not work and has not been working for a long time. It is expensive and it is so underresourced that people can now wait literally up to 15 years, from seven to 15 years, to even have a search done to see if there's a match of registration. This has got to stop.

There are not going to be any special problems associated with this legislation. It really just expedites what's already happening out there. There are birth parents, adopted adults, adoptees - that's redundant - out there searching and finding each other, but it's agonizing because of the system we have in place in Ontario. I hear from people 50 years and older who are searching and who are in fear that their birth mother or birth father, if that's whom they're seeking, may die, and in fact that has happened. People need access to their health information. The situation we have now is unacceptable.

1010

I know that there have been a few concerns expressed. The minister has expressed concerns about privacy laws. That came up during the debate on Tony Martin's bill. It was made very clear, this is not a problem in other jurisdictions across the world. Furthermore, as was pointed out during the committee hearings by Mrs Judy Wright, who has been very involved in this issue for a long time and was then the president of Parent Finders, what's going to happen is there are going to be court cases resulting from this mess that we've got now with the registry because people are getting tired of waiting; people are getting older, and it's totally unacceptable that they have to wait that long. That is where we're going to find ourselves, in court, if we do not move and move quickly on this legislation today.

Concern has also been expressed about birth mothers who want to remain anonymous. As birth mothers, we never agreed to that. On the whole, it was imposed on us. Certainly it was not something that I wanted. But there is protection in this bill for those birth mothers who do not want to be found for whatever reason. We made sure that clause was in there. We have found as well that this no-contact veto is working in other jurisdictions.

I want to appeal to everybody here today to support Bill 88 on second reading. I'm also going to appeal to the members today to allow unanimous consent to let the bill go on to third reading. Obviously, we can't have that vote today on third reading, that's not allowed in private members' hour, but I would like it to move on. I have spoken to individuals involved in the adoption community. The response is, some people would like it go further, as would I - and I know Mr Cullen would, and others - but this is the compromise that was made after extensive hearings and consultation in 1994 and previous to that. I believe there is a huge consensus to move forward on this bill. I am appealing to the members, therefore, to allow it to go on to third reading because we do not need committee hearings.

We all know that an election is coming soon; we're not sure when. But obviously, the very big concern is that we could debate this bill today, it could pass second reading, be sent out to committee and it will never see the light of day again.

I heard a woman on CBC Radio responding to a story that I did, that was done on Metro Morning about this issue, who was very pleased to see it come forward, but said she's concerned about these private member's bills. In regard to this kind of important legislation that affects literally up to a million people when you include the relatives of the adult adoptees, the concern expressed was that private member's bills seldom get through the House, and we all know that is true.

But we have a rare opportunity today to approach this in a non-partisan way, to walk out of here today with our heads held high and proud that we were able to work together for the good of about a million people affected by this bad legislation in Ontario. We sometimes forget, I believe, as legislators the awesome power we have over individual lives in this province as we debate bill after bill, the day-to-day grind. I believe we forget that sometimes.

Today is an opportunity to play Santa Claus. Christmas is coming, it's Human Rights Day. We have an opportunity together to do something good, to do something for the people who have been waiting for so long, for all three parties to act and pass this legislation. I hope that people can do that. I believe that the adoption community has had enough. There has been 25 years of this. There is similar legislation in Canada, across the world, and it is working. I urge members to support this bill today on second and third reading.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I want to commend the member for Riverdale for bringing this legislation forward. I want to say at the outset that I will be voting in favour of this legislation when it comes to a vote.

I want to express as well that I speak to this issue as an adoptive parent. My wife and I had the experience of adoption some 16 years ago when we brought home a two-day-old son and a six-pack of formula because, in the final hours, the approval for the adoption and the call from the doctor came so unexpectedly. It was at once a disconcerting experience for us, because here we had this child, but at the same time a great blessing, and has continued to be so over the 16 years. I also have a 20-year-old daughter, and I can tell you that in my heart, and I'm sure the heart of any adoptive parent, there is no difference between a child who is born naturally into that home or a child who is adopted. The blessings and the challenges are the same. The stresses are the same. I can share with you as well that my wife comes from a family where all four siblings were adopted.

We have had personal experience of knowing the wonderings that go on in the heart and in the mind of one who is adopted considering their past. What was the parenthood about, who was the father, who was the mother and what does that mean to the individual as to who they are today? So I think it behooves us to give very serious consideration to the intent of this legislation, which is to allow individuals who are adopted into the fullness of their life to appreciate who their birth parents were and what that means in their lives today and into the future.

Is it appropriate for a system to be in place that hides important information about a person's background from them for life? I don't believe so. I believe that we as a society, as a Legislature, need to do what we can to take the barriers down to ensure that everyone in this province has that access, that right and that opportunity.

I want to say at the same time that I believe also, as legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is balance in the system. I know the member also had this in mind when she incorporated into this legislation an opportunity for birth parents to request that the disclosure not be made, wanting, I'm sure, by providing for this to protect the privacy, but also no doubt circumstances perhaps over which an individual had no control at one stage of their life, and wanting to protect the state of the existing family relationships as well.

Not everyone understands and can enter fully into the feelings, the circumstances that exist if one hasn't lived through that process. I think it's probably very difficult for some people to accept that now there is another person in this family. After a great number of years when the family unit was considered to be two, three or four, and now there is this other person who has come into the picture.

1020

I don't think the member intended at all for this legislation to interrupt that family circumstance today so she has made a provision for the birth parent to register the intent not to be contacted. But I believe as well, and I agree, that relevant medical information should be made available wherever possible. I believe there is a balance here that addresses concerns, that allows an individual to be protected if that's their wish, and at the same time opens the door for individuals who are seeking information to get that information and have it available.

I find it interesting, and again I think it demonstrates the sensitivity the member had when she developed this legislation, in that this right of access applies only to the adoptee at a point of 18 years and older and doesn't really give that same right to the parent who was involved in giving the child up for adoption. That speaks to the intent of the legislation, and I commend her for that. I will say as well, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, that as a ministry, as a government, we believe the principle of this bill deserves support.

I will also acknowledge that the existing process that we have in place is in need of review, that the waiting lists we hear about are unacceptable. We will make a commitment to continue to review. We have over the last number of years continued to provide more resources. I know the member will say not enough resources - unfortunately, that is a problem we face in every ministry and every program - but things certainly are getting better and will continue to do so as we bring the affairs of this province in order, and over time we'll even be able to bring more resources to bear on this registry.

In closing, I want to again commend the member for bringing this forward. I will be supporting it. I urge members of this House to support it as well. There are some details about this bill on which I would like to have some opportunity to have some further discussion and debate and I trust there will be that opportunity to do it. I understand the intent of the member is to move this forward without any committee time, but I will not be able to support that. I do look forward to some committee time on this bill.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate and to rise in support of the bill that was introduced today. I want to first of all congratulate the member for Riverdale for the work she has done in this area.

I have had some experience in the sense of friends of mine who have gone through difficulties with this process in the past which they have tried very hard to resolve and to find and reunite to some degree with their parents. But the issue really struck home for me in reading the personal experience that the member for Riverdale went through. Reading that last April, I can tell you I was moved by what she went through. I was moved by the difficulty, the struggles, and the joy in their reunion that occurred. I certainly looked at that and it really has stuck in my mind as to why this is important and why I believe we need, and have to, and must, all of us in this House today, support this.

It's rare in public life that we can use our own personal experiences and our own struggles to make legislation, to bring forward legislation, and to ensure that other people do not go through those difficulties, or make it easier for other people to deal with the problems we have dealt with. I think the member for Riverdale has done that. I know her son is here today. I'm sure that both are extremely proud of each other, of their efforts, of their accomplishments and of their commitment to this issue.

The time has come for us to bring this legislation into the year 2000. It's legislation that has not changed over the years in this province. It's legislation that was brought in at a time when there was a different mindset as to adoptions and as to the role of birth mothers and children to find their parents. Times have changed and the attitudes have changed. The willingness of people to reunite and to make that connection again is there, and the public attitude towards that. I think we certainly have public support for this.

It's one of those opportunities in this House - it's rare - that we can do something, pass some legislation that has no political overtones. That is the beauty of this. This is not a political issue, it's not a partisan issue. It's simply an issue of fairness, it's an issue of equality. As the member for Riverdale mentioned, the experience of people having to search for 15, 20 years - to me, the pain and the struggles and the difficulties in that are unimaginable. Through this piece of legislation I believe we can make that process much simpler, we can make the opportunity for that bond to occur and we can play a role in ensuring that many people have the opportunity to deal with something that may be bugging them or that they've been trying to change or do for 15, 20, 25 years. I think it's a great change that is occurring.

I know that for many women it's a very traumatic experience to go through, as the member for Riverdale has told us. For the children, as they get older and want to reconnect with their birth parents, it's a very traumatic experience. We in government have an opportunity to ensure that there's fairness and, as the member mentioned, balance in this. I think this bill does that. It protects both the need of the child and, on the other hand, the need of the birth mother if she chooses not to have any contact, for whatever reason. I believe in most cases people want that opportunity, and people should have access to that opportunity.

We have a responsibility to ensure that through this piece of legislation we can do that. I would like to see it go through the House quickly. I think it makes sense. I don't think it needs a great deal of refinement. There may be a change here or there, but overall the intent, the tone of it, the direction of it, the effort that has gone behind this, make it, to me, a very solid piece and allows us to catch up with many other jurisdictions. It gives us an opportunity, in a non-partisan way in this House today, to do something positive and good for all Ontarians. I will support it.

As I wrap up, I again want to congratulate the member for Riverdale for her efforts in this, and the people who have worked with her on this. I can tell you that I had a great deal of respect for her, coming into this House when I got elected, knowing the experience she's gone through and what she was put through. That level of respect has grown tremendously and I want to congratulate her for the work she's done.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to stand in support of Bill 88. I think members know that last June I tabled Bill 39, which sought to amend the legislation we have governing adoption information to allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives.

The legislation we have before us here presented by my colleague from Riverdale builds on the work that Tony Martin provided us in the last government in Bill 158. As the member for Riverdale has said, that work that deals with access to birth registration records for adult adoptees, which is what we have before us today, is a consensus. I would like to see it expanded, because there are more people involved in the adoption triad and I think they have rights as adults to learn about their families.

1030

But I'm more than happy to support the legislation we have here, because my own particular private member's bill would not come up until June, or thereabouts, under the order paper and we may not be here in June. I'm very anxious to see that there is some progress, because progress is needed, very much so.

I'm an adoptive parent. I adopted my son when he was three going on four. When I adopted him, his name was changed and the birth record was changed; it was as if I was his natural father. He knows I'm not his natural father; I'm the only father he knows, mind you, but he knows I'm not his natural father. But the record doesn't show, would not allow him to see that he had another name, that he came from another family.

There are many people who have similar experiences to relate, even in this House. My colleague from Cochrane South, who is sitting beside me, will tell you his experience; my colleague from Nickel Belt, Mr Morin, has his experience. Many of us have experiences, or we know people who either adopted or were adopted or know someone in their family who's been through the process. Indeed, we have over a quarter of a million adoptions in Ontario. There are over a million people who have been affected by this.

What we're looking for here is to give those adults who desire to know more about their families the ability to do so and the facility to do so. Right now we know that we have an adoption disclosure registry, but we also know that there are over 50,000 people who registered to find out about their origins. Unfortunately, the number of searches completed has been 9,000. The waiting list is over 15 years, and that's really unfortunate.

We also know that the practice of sealed adoptions really began 70 years ago based on the popular notion of the day that unmarried pregnancies, infertility and illegitimacy were humiliations to be hidden. Thank goodness, we have moved passed that.

Currently, as I said earlier, 20% of the Ontario population is involved in some way with adoptions. The lack of access to adoption records is a continuing source of deep frustration to the many adoptees and their descendants, as well as to those birth parents who wish to know what happened to their children.

Ontario's legislation governing access to adoption information, quite frankly, is antiquated. In 1979, when the adoption disclosure registry was established, it was the cutting edge, but we have been overtaken by other jurisdictions around the world and even in Canada. The reform of adoption secrecy laws is simply long overdue and must be addressed. I'm pleased to be here today, hopefully with the support of members to do that.

The member for Riverdale mentioned that this bill really covers no new ground compared to the bill that was introduced, went through second reading, went through committee, heard delegations and was reported unanimously to this House last cycle. I'm sure the member for Sault Ste Marie will be able to provide more details on that.

This is a bill, not written de nouveau, as they would say, but that has been written and gone through the fire. I am hopeful that members here will support this initiative. I personally would like to thank Patricia McCarron, who is an adoptee and co-chair of the alliance for reform of adoption law and president of Parent Finders, National Capital Region; Monica Byrne, a birth parent, who is the registrar for Parent Finders in Ottawa-Carleton; Katherine Kimbell, an adoptive parent, who was co-chair of ARCO; Pat Fenton, from the Adoption Council of Ontario, also an adoptive parent; and Dianne Mathes, who is chair of ACO and an adoptee.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to congratulate the member for Riverdale for bringing this issue to the House. I gather it's essentially the same bill that was introduced by the member for Sault Ste Marie. I can tell you that in the government caucus there was a lot of debate, there was a lot discussion for and against. We have two speakers from our side of the House. One is the member for York-Mackenzie, who is speaking in favour of it, and I am speaking against it. Not that I'm representing a particular group - I was against Mr Martin's bill as well - although I certainly acknowledge that the system is fraught with problems and needs to be dealt with, and I support you on bringing the issue to the House.

Having said that, I'd like to outline some of the reasons why I'm opposed to this particular bill. I think that all of us in this House have either personal experience or know someone who's been adopted or has adopted children. It's a very emotional issue. I understand that some of the people who may be watching here or on television feel that way; there are people in this assembly that feel that way. It's a very emotional issue and it's difficult to talk about.

Sometimes you try not to personalize matters too much, but I can tell you that my wife has just gone through this. She was adopted and had the unfortunate experience of having a connection, through social services, with her birth mother. She wrote a letter - and this probably has nothing to do with your bill, but it shows the emotional impact of this whole issue. It was suggested that the first contact be by letter. She wrote a very detailed letter about her life - and she's had a successful life up until the present time - outlined all that, and sent a photograph of herself. The birth mother, for whatever reason, changed her mind after receiving that letter. Whether she thought everything was OK, I don't know, but it was devastating. I'm sure there are similar stories.

The first argument that I would make as to why this bill should not be supported is that it appears to be retroactive; it appears to go back to time immemorial. Arrangements were made by individuals. In other words, it may be that if the position was that from now until the future, if you're going to adopt these are the conditions, you know it may be possible that in the future there will be contact. But contracts were made, arrangements were made, by birth parents that there would be no contact. Now, if this bill passes - not everybody reads the Ontario Gazette; not everybody reads the newspapers - not everybody will know that this law is going to pass. It's most unfair to those people. Those people have married, have started up new lives, have children, have siblings, all kinds of things. It could have a profound effect on those people. The bill certainly is retroactive and it goes back, I guess, indefinitely. I don't think that's fair to do.

The other issue is, this bill is designed for the adopted children finding their birth parents. The member talks about human rights. What about the rights of the birth parents? They don't seem to have the same rights in this bill as the adopted children. There are birth parents, Ms Churley being one of them, who, for different reasons, wish to communicate with or contact their child. This bill does not provide that right, and I would submit to her that - and by saying this, I'm not even supporting this philosophy, only pointing out that if this is good enough for the adopted persons, why isn't it good enough for the birth parents? Why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we give the birth parents the same rights as we're giving the adopted children?

Those are the two major reasons I'm opposed to the bill. Looking at the bill, there's a section that deals with counselling and it seems to - and the member may wish to speak on this. If this bill passes and reaches committee, it would be appropriate to deal with that then, I suppose. The whole issue of counselling: The process now is that if both parties register, there is a contact, there is a communication. It's a gradual communication - it could be by letter; it could be over a period of time - and well it should be.

In my wife's case it's 40 years. Forty years have gone by. That's a long time to confront two individuals, a terribly long time. It's a very traumatic experience. This bill, it seems to me, doesn't necessarily make it optional but it certainly waters down the whole aspect of counselling.

We're making people take a proactive step. If you're going to do that - and I don't support that - you should make everyone make a proactive step. In other words, the adoptive children should do the same thing, they should register their objection, because the same thing could happen.

I admire your initiative in bringing this forward, but I will be voting against it.

1040

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to commend the member for Riverdale as well, and to say that I'll be supporting the bill. There are really three major parties affected by the bill, and I'd like to touch on each of them for a moment.

The first, obviously, is the adopted child. For many adopted children - indeed for all of us, I think - an understanding of our roots is important in our lives at some stage. For some adopted children it's not an issue, but for others, understandably, it becomes extremely important in their lives. This bill gives them a better opportunity to fill a void in their lives: "Where are my roots? Where did I come from?" I think it's a meaningful step forward for the adopted child.

For the birth parents, there is a whole series of circumstances. Ms Churley has eloquently told us about her own in a very important way. But for many birth parents the decision to give up their child for adoption was made at a point in their lives, perhaps almost always, of trauma, of challenge, of problems in their lives when they were unable, for a variety of reasons, to keep their child. One can only imagine the void in their lives of never knowing what happened to their child, where they are, how their life is going. This, by and large, provides a vehicle for them to fill a major void in their lives.

The decision is left to them. I thought Mr Tilson spoke well about ensuring, if this bill were to pass, that they are aware they have to make that decision, that it doesn't come as an unanticipated surprise to them. As I say, you can only imagine people out there who, for a variety of circumstances, were forced to give up their child for adoption whose life can never be fulfilled unless they get the answer to that question.

The third group, obviously, are the adoptive parents. In some respects it's the most challenging part of the bill. I would say, though, that the majority of adoptive parents, in my experience, want to do what's in the best interest of their adopted child. If the adopted child says, "I really would like to find my birth parents," my own view is that 90% of adoptive parents support that. They understand it's a void in their child's life that needs to be answered.

Probably the challenge in this is the adoptive parents who, for whatever reason, feel threatened by this; it causes them a sense of unease. My own view is that if the thought of their adopted child finding their birth parent causes them unease, this bill will not in any substantive way make that feeling better or worse. If a child desperately wants to find their birth parent and the adoptive parents aren't supportive of it, that child will try anyway.

I understand how emotional this feeling of, "I feel a bit uneasy that my adopted son or daughter wants to find their birth parents," can be for some adoptive parents. As I say, I think 90% of adoptive parents are very supportive of that. I dare say they've had that conversation and would be enthusiastically helping them. I appreciate that for many this is a very difficult debate. But I think this bill is certainly a significant step forward for the adopted child and for the birth parents and for the adoptive parents. For those few adoptive parents who may feel uneasy or somehow threatened by it, I don't think the bill significantly changes that.

I commend the member for bringing the bill forward and indicate my support for it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This is a little like déjà vu all over again. As I look around this place, I see two of the ministers who were instrumental in working with me and so many others to almost achieve a bill in Ontario back in 1995 that would have precluded our having this discussion today. I look in the members' gallery and see people who were here that infamous night when we all thought we were that close to success in this endeavour, only to be dropped disappointingly from that height of having achieved another landmark in giving human rights to another group of people who have been denied those for so long in Ontario.

I want to say probably three things about this bill in the few minutes I have this morning. One is that this bill was not Tony Martin's bill. This was a bill that I simply sponsored. This bill was driven by the adoption community, the triad. All parts of the adoption community were supportive of this bill. This bill was driven by the government of the day, who wanted to see it happen and used this vehicle to make it happen, supported 150% by the ministers directly responsible for the activity around adoption in this province: Marilyn Churley, who was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations at the time; Tony Silipo, who was the Minister of Community and Social Services at the time, and their staffs. Some of those people put in long hours working with us to refine every detail in this bill so that we covered those things that needed to be covered, and responded in a serious and constructive way to the questions and concerns of those who were concerned at that time.

The second thing I want to say is that it's interesting to note that this bill was duly processed at that time. There was full debate in committee particularly. We had several days of public hearings, where people came forward and told their stories and asked questions. We had members of every party in this establishment around the table. I remember the contribution of Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South, being so determined that this would go through, challenging us every time we turned around, meeting him in the corridors. He was so convinced that this was the right thing; he was convinced that he had his caucus on side and that they were going to support this.

The only question in Cam Jackson's mind, from the Conservative caucus of the day was: Was the government behind this? Were Tony Silipo and Marilyn Churley behind this? Were we going to move the resources from one ministry to the other and provide the extra resources that were going to be required to make this happen? And on every occasion that he asked that question, we said, "Yes, we are committed; yes, this is going to happen." There was going to be no holdup. All we had to do was get it through the process of this place.

This bill was supported by all parties in the Legislature at that time. I remember the Liberals: I remember the positive and constructive contribution of Charles Beer; I remember Lyn McLeod at those committee meetings, at 10, 11 o'clock at night as we sat here till midnight, bringing forward amendments to that bill so that we might respond to the concerns that were raised by people such as the member who spoke here this morning. We answered those questions. We dealt with this three years ago. Three years ago, Ontario was out in front on this issue. We were going to set a precedent for this country.

Three years later, unfortunately, we are behind. We are playing catch-up. Three years ago, we were looking at New Zealand as the model we would follow. Now we're looking at legislation that's been passed, for example, in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We're not leading the way any more. We're only playing catch-up. As the province that considers itself the leader in so many areas in this country, we are playing catch-up in this area and continue to do so. That, in my mind, is very unfortunate.

1050

I remember Larry O'Connor, from our own caucus, working with me through the very difficult discussions we had over amendments that were brought forward and debated and eventually adopted so that we might answer some of the questions people had. I remember the discussion around the provision to block contact if that was the desire of the adoptive parent. I remember the discussion around counselling and the decision that was made, and rightfully, that mandatory counselling was not appropriate but that counselling should be offered if it was required, if it was requested.

I remember the commitment that was made by the ministries at the time that that would be provided, that that would be paid for. I remember the sense of relief as everybody looked at the possibility of getting this bill through, that finally the bottleneck would be let up, and people who for too long had been denied their basic human right, a right that all of us take for granted, access to information about their birth, were finally going to be given that right.

This morning, I encourage everybody in this place to support this bill that's in front of us.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to speak in favour of this bill today. I'd like to congratulate the member for Riverdale for bringing this forward. I think she's got the right tone in this bill. I have been following this issue over the years, and some of my past colleagues have been lobbying on behalf of past bills. When the member for Sault Ste Marie brought his bill forward in 1995, I remember that Mavis Wilson, the former member for Dufferin-Peel, who found her child, was very supportive of this and asked us to support Mr Martin's bill at the time.

I'm an adopted child, so I certainly have an interest in this. My sister is also adopted. My parents were very good about this. I think I was six or seven when they gave me a book called Chosen Child and told me how they had brought me into their family and the reasons why. It was done very well. In fact it was done so well, and I felt so secure in my family, that I've actually never had the desire to seek out my birth parents. I've thought about it, and I think part of the reason may be that I was born in Australia when my parents were there and with the great distance it really wasn't important to me and I was very happy in my family where I grew up in Oakville.

Now my sister, who's also adopted - and I know this is certainly one of the reasons that people want to seek out their birth parents - has had health problems. She felt, and her doctor felt, that it would be important for her to try to seek out her birth parents to help with the diagnosis and prognosis of health concerns that she had. There is a multitude of reasons why adoptive children want to seek out their birth parents. It could be based on the speech that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt made this morning, that a sense of rootlessness might initiate this and that adopted children might want to really find out where their birth family came from and who they were. But as in the case of my sister, it could be for health reasons. There are a number of reasons why an adopted child may want to find their birth parents.

I think Ms Churley's bill sets the right tone, because while it's important for adopted children to be able to find their birth parents if they so desire, I also respect the right of the birth parent not to be contacted if that is what they wish, especially, I suppose, from the generation that I was born into. At that time there would be a stigma about, as we used to call it, illegitimate birth, and to be surprised one day down the road in a family situation where maybe the mother never told her family about the past situation could have been and may be detrimental to that family situation. That's best for that person to judge. Today we've come a long way from that sort of stigma, but I still think it is important that the birth parents have that right if they so wish.

The member for Riverdale's bill strikes that balance, the balance of the right to know with the balance of privacy for the birth parent. I think it sets the right tone. I think it's the right time. I would certainly encourage all the members of this House to adopt it, and I would encourage them that the government really listen to the voice of this House if it is to be adopted today and incorporate this in government legislation so this would be the law of the land in Ontario.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to have an opportunity, as brief as it may be, to stand here today and express my support for this bill and thank my colleague Marilyn Churley for bringing forward this piece of legislation, for the drive that she has shown and the sensitivity that she has shown, given her own experience, to bring this legislation forward.

As she mentioned and as my colleague Tony Martin mentioned in recounting the history of this legislation in the previous incarnations, I was proud as a member of the previous government to have an opportunity to work on this issue and to work with my colleague Ms Churley at the time, and Mr Martin, to bring forward his private member's bill when we were not able to get it on the government's legislative agenda. I say this because this is for me one of the most significant discussions and issues that we have dealt with as a Parliament in this government, as it was in the last government.

I want to say particularly to Mr Tilson and to people who hold the concerns that he does that I understand - I don't agree, but I understand - the concerns he expresses. I would say to him and to members who may think as he does that we need to continue to provide that protection by in fact denying the rights to certain other individuals. We are talking here about adults, people who are able to make up their own minds about whether they want to fill that void, to seek that link back with their past, realizing that in doing so there may be cases, such as the one Mr Tilson recounted, where one of the other parties, the birth parent, may not want that link to be re-established. That is a right that has to be respected, but I don't think that is sufficient to deny adults who have been adopted when they were children and who lost those rights by the laws of the land as they stood then, and unfortunately as they stand today.

It is not good enough to simply say we can continue this situation. I hope we can show today the sensitivity that this issue requires and the courage that this issue requires to allow this to go forward.

I wish, quite frankly, that we had more time to get into some of those issues. I know that, as my colleague mentioned, all of those issues were canvassed in the committee discussions. I would ask people to turn to that discussion, to pay attention to the fact that that was done and to at least allow this bill to go forward from here so that we can deal with a very important issue and give back to an important group of citizens in Ontario rights that were taken away from them through no doing of their own.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Cochrane North.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Cochrane-Sud, monsieur le Président. Merci.

J'aimerais féliciter ma collègue M^me Churley d'être venue avec ce projet de loi. Je pense que c'est très important. On a besoin d'écouter le débat.

Je veux dire, personnellement, que ça fait un mois que j'ai été contacté, et notre famille, par ma soeur. On ne savait pas pour des années qu'on avait une soeur. On a été contactés par Colette ça fait environ un mois. Je peux vous dire, comme un des frères qui ont été contactés, je suis très content qu'elle a eu la possibilité de nous trouver. C'était très difficile pour Colette. Elle a essayé pour une vingtaine d'années, et c'est par chance plus que par méthode qu'elle a été capable de contacter la famille.

Pour les autres enfants qui recherchent leur famille, ne les faites pas aller à travers ce que Colette a dû faire pour nous trouver, notre famille.

1100

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

Ms Churley: I'm going to read a paragraph of the letter I received from an adoptive father. He says:

"We believe if our children are loved and cared for, we do not have to be afraid of their searching, for these reunions will only help them become more settled and become more satisfied human beings. Our love for our son and his love for us has not diminished since this reunion but only grown as his mind and heart are at peace. We pray that he will also have an opportunity at some time to meet his birth father as well."

I've received dozens and dozens of phone calls and letters like this.

I appreciate the comments from all of my colleagues. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed. Mr Tilson, my heart goes out to anybody who had a bad experience in this kind of situation; however, I don't believe that can stop our quest for the right of every human being in this province to have information about themselves. Can you imagine, if you knew somebody had some secret information in a document about you and you couldn't get your hands on it?

I was going to ask for unanimous consent to move to third reading today. I understand I don't have it. I'm not going to ask for that. In the spirit of co-operation, I will just ask to move second reading today.

What I would like as a result is for every member here today, from both sides of the House, to support this bill and the need to move forward quickly. I would ask you to make it a priority in your caucus, a priority with your House leaders, so that we can all work together to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen this time as happened in our government, that the House is prorogued and the bill dies on the order paper. We cannot have that happen to these people again. I think you would agree with me on that. So I would ask you to support me in getting this through the House.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

Mr Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95, An Act to provide for the fair distribution of medical resources in Ontario / Projet de loi 95, Loi assurant la distribution équitable des ressources médicales en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Close to 15,000 men, women and children in my riding of Cambridge are presently without a family doctor. I have heard from many retired residents and families with small children who, of necessity, have to take medical concerns to the emergency ward, an expensive and unsatisfactory solution for any family.

We are seeing urgent care centres and walk-in clinics opening across this province. They provide excellent service to the community; however, they do not replace a family doctor.

Ontario residents want to be treated by a doctor who knows their history, who understand their problems and concerns. To me, the father of four children, not having a family physician creates unnecessary stress on the family and our children and in no way assists the health of our residents.

This problem has existed for a long time and has been aggravated by the substantial growth of the population during the past decade. My community of Cambridge is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. Over 10,000 new residents have moved to Cambridge over the past four years. Many cities in Ontario are growing just as rapidly. We must plan for the future to be sure that our medical resources are distributed where needed. We plan for new roads, commercial development, city services and upgrades years in advance. Why should medical resources be any different? A family doctor is a necessity and should be treated as such.

The Globe and Mail reported in April 1998 that there was a crisis brewing, in that we have restricted the number of students entering medical schools in Ontario. This will result in shortages across our country without some major change.

Changes are needed. We must recognize that many family doctors are handling twice as many cases as they should. They are doing all they can. This is a problem that must be addressed now.

Many people might ask why a doctor would not want to set up a practice in a city like Cambridge. Cambridge has a first-class medical hospital. Cambridge has a unique and beautiful setting on the heritage Grand River. We have a powerful industrial base, including Toyota, Babcock and Wilcox and Allen-Bradley, to name a few. We are only 100 kilometres west of Toronto on the 401, part of the historic region of Waterloo, just minutes away from Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph, the location of three universities and other excellent facilities.

Within the past few days Minister Witmer has awarded the region of Waterloo a new cardiac and cancer centre. We have received approval for an MRI and major upgrades to our local hospitals. Cambridge hospital has received during the last three years some additional $10 million. In addition, we have just authorized 300 new long-term-care beds for Waterloo region.

Families in Waterloo region are finally getting their fair share of health services. This government has delivered on its promise to renew the health care system. The government has delivered for the people of Cambridge and Waterloo region.

We are a prosperous and caring community. One of the many rewards of my job is to meet so many volunteers who make our city so outstanding, but our present and our future are clouded by the lack of family physicians.

Some two years ago, I initiated a task force on doctors in partnership with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, Mayor Jane Brewer and the council of the city of Cambridge, and representatives for local doctors: Dr Ashton, Dr Crosby and the chief of medical staff, Dr David McLeod.

The task force started a communication program advertising our needs and providing a presence at various physicians' trade shows and conventions. As a task force we applied for an underserviced designation and received that designation over a year ago.

Our efforts have been rewarded in the recruitment of six new family physicians, and there is no doubt that this success would not have been possible without the partnership of all concerned, but during the same period we lost five family doctors to retirement and other factors, while the rate of population growth accelerated.

My proposed bill would result in a more equitable distribution of doctors throughout our province.

Ninety per cent of the population that is underserviced live in southern Ontario. As a benchmark, Metro Toronto has 10 doctors for every 10,000 population. Cambridge and Waterloo region on the other hand have only 5.89; Durham, 5.97; Essex, 6.2; Simcoe, 6.92. Oxford county needs 33 family physicians immediately; Elgin, 26; Kent, 32; Huron, nine; Perth, 12.

The negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association resulted in an OHIP penalty discount for settling in overserviced areas. I recall discussions with the representatives who believed this step would solve the problem. It has not to date, and the inequity continues.

Let me tell you about the bill and how it works. I should start by telling you what it does not do. It does not require one red cent of additional spending by the government and therefore does not detract from present health programs. It does not affect doctors presently practising or students presently enrolled in medical schools in Ontario. It does not prohibit, and I'd like to emphasize that, the mobility of graduating doctors. They are still free to practise where they choose, but under the bill there could be financial penalties.

1110

The bill provides simply that a medical student entering the first year of a medical school would sign an agreement with the crown to practise in certain underserviced areas designated by the Minister of Health for a term of years. Upon graduation the new doctor has a choice: abide by the contract they have signed or breach the contract and pay back to the government the subsidy of his or her education.

I estimate the yearly subsidy per medical student is $16,000 for a total of $64,000 for a four-year course. A resident in Ontario applying to the University of Toronto medical school would pay $4,844 in tuition for each year. That was in 1997-98. An international non-resident student would pay $21,000 for the same course, the same four years. The difference is $16,000, which I say approximates the actual cost of the subsidy.

If the student leaves the province after graduation, that subsidy of $64,000 is lost irretrievably. Even if that student practises in an overserviced area in the province, that subsidy, in my opinion, is lost as the services are not fulfilling the real need of persons seeking a family physician.

I do not profess that this bill solves the whole problem or for the long term. It is only an additional tool for underserviced areas to meet this urgent need. On behalf of families who need a family physician, I hope all members will support this bill.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak to second reading of Bill 95. Let me say at the outset that I appreciate, perhaps more than most people, the growing frustration on all parts, in this Legislature and in the province beyond, about the worsening situation with respect to the distribution of medical personnel.

I can tell you that it has been a point of contention for as long as I've been here and the situation appears to be getting worse, not better. To that extent, I appreciate my colleague from Cambridge bringing the issue forward.

I don't think there's a member outside of the major urban areas - in fact, including some in major urban areas - who does not share the concern and the frustration. I can tell you that in communities in my area, communities as large as Pembroke and as small as Beachburg and Whitney and Barry's Bay and Eganville, this is a real and ongoing concern. To be ecumenical about it, it's been a concern for some considerable time.

Is there a problem? Absolutely. Is the problem getting worse? Yes. Does Bill 95 provide a mechanism to improve the situation? I'm sorry to say that in my considered opinion, it does not, and therefore I do not support the principles of Bill 95.

I don't have a great deal of time this morning, but I have in my hand today a letter from a constituent of mine, Dr Ian Park, who is the chair of the rural section of the Ontario Medical Association. Ian Park is a young practitioner of medicine up in the village of Whitney in south Algonquin, which is in the most southwesterly part of my constituency. Dr Park is walking this walk. He provides medical services to many of my constituents in the Whitney-Barry's Bay area, so he ought to know.

He writes me, both in his capacity as a local physician and as president of the rural section of the OMA, and he says he strongly objects to Bill 95.

Why? Firstly, he says it will "stigmatize medical practice in rural areas." Secondly, quoting his letter to me: "it virtually guarantees the institutionalization of the `revolving door' situation so many rural and underserved communities face. As a rural physician, I do not want colleagues by my side who are there under this extremely coercive measure. These physicians, most of whom will have limited training for rural conditions, will be working under duress, hating every minute of it, and will leave the rural areas, and often enough the province, as soon as they can. This is the worst possible scenario: Just ask municipal leaders in northern and rural areas - many will tell you that no physician may be preferable to a new one every six or 12 months."

We have, from people like Dr Park, very compelling evidence, based on their experience that however good the intentions of my honourable friend from Cambridge are, this mechanism, coercive and draconian as it appears to be, will not solve the problem. Surely, some of us who are rather senior in our experience here have got to, from our point of view, try to find remedies that will actually solve the problem. Is there a problem? Yes. But let us not, as Dr Park said, aggravate and worsen the very conditions we're trying to fix.

Having said that, I want to draw to the attention of the House a report received just this week by all members, a report jointly from the Ontario section of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada and PAIRO, the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, a report called From Education to Sustainability.

All of my colleagues ought to read this because these people, who have studied this far more intensively than I have, make it plain; they tell us a number of things. First and foremost, they say, "Coercive measures like Bill 95 will not work." What we need, if we are going to address the situation in communities like Eganville and Beachburg and Whitney and increasingly in places, incredibly, like Waterloo region and the city of Windsor, we are told by these people that we've got to have a comprehensive and integrated program, that we've got to deal with medical education, not just at the faculty level but at the pre-service level. We've got to get into the high schools and do a far better job of counselling and mentoring young people about the opportunities and the exciting times that are to be had in rural and remote communities.

We find out from this report, for example, that "In the United States" -

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, I'm only citing from the evidence of this group of experts. Let me read from page 13 of the report: "In the United States, 12 out of 126 medical schools produce 25% of the nation's practising rural physicians." Why? Because they have very dedicated programs that target the problem in a comprehensive and integrated way.

I will take my seat and leave some time for my colleagues from Timiskaming and York South, who will make their own arguments. But I feel very strongly that Bill 95, however well intentioned, will worsen, not improve a problem that clearly has to be addressed.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Certainly, everyone in this House recognizes that there is a serious problem around the provision of primary care in this province. I come from the southwest part of the province, like the mover of the bill, and I can tell you that, increasingly, community after community is experiencing a shortage of doctors brought about by the demographic trends both within the physician community and then within the broader community.

There are areas that used to have no difficulty maintaining an adequate servicing by family physicians that now find themselves, as the result of retirement and as the result of physicians moving to other jurisdictions, having real difficulty finding a family physician not only for people who move into the area but for people who have lived there for a long time and whose physician suddenly leaves. That problem is causing communities all over the province to petition the Minister of Health to include them in the underserviced designations. I was at a talk in the Niagara region, in Welland, the other night and was urged by people in that community to speak about their need to be designated as an underserviced community.

There are also underserviced specialties across the province where you cannot find primary care physicians to deal with people with specific problems. The area of AIDS, for example, is a very serious area of practice which requires a lot of primary care. It is difficult to attract physicians into that very difficult area of practice. Psychiatry is another, and anaesthesiology is a similar kind of an issue. Those are things that must be addressed.

What strikes me about the member's bill is that it carries on this government's belief that you can bully people into doing the right thing, that you can come up with a simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution that coerces and forces people into providing services that have not been provided in the past. Quite frankly, it is a bill that supposes this is a simple problem that can be dealt with by simplistic means, and it is not.

1120

My colleague from Renfrew North mentioned this very fine report, subtitled A Blueprint for Addressing Physician Recruitment and Retention in Rural and Remote Ontario, which came out only this week. It has thoroughly looked at the whole continuum from the beginning of education through to the full practice of medicine and the encouragement of retention in the full practice of medicine in remote and rural areas.

It talks about the need for us to integrate our policies in education, our policies at the community level, our encouragement, our support for physicians. It encourages us to look at physicians as people who have family responsibilities and whose needs need to be taken into account. It talks about the burnout of physicians who are either sole practitioners or practising with one or two other physicians and who find themselves on call every night and every weekend, unable to enjoy any kind of quality of life, unable to pursue the continuing education which their own profession requires, because they are trying to service a population. That burnout is a huge factor in people leaving the province.

This government, as is very typical, thinks that you can bludgeon people into staying in the province of Ontario and providing adequate medical services when, frankly, coercion will not work. This is a problem that has existed for a long time. Different methodologies have been tried. It is quite clear that we have to be more effective than we have been in the past. But I would suggest that there are positive incentives that can be put forward by governments at the provincial level and at the municipal level, by communities, integrated approaches to this problem that are going to make it possible for people to be attracted. Quite frankly, there are some elements of this member's idea that could be put in a positive way and brought forward.

I want to say to the member that I personally am deeply offended by the letter he sent to all members about this bill. I will read to you the third paragraph of that letter and then I will read the bill, and people can judge for themselves whether this member was trying to tell us he was doing something that was different from what the bill actually says. This is dated December 8, and it is from the member who brought forward this bill, third paragraph:

"This bill provides a framework whereby the Ontario government may offer a reimbursement to medical students for university tuition costs. In exchange, the student is required to sign a `return for service' agreement with the government. The bill also provides for students wishing to appeal the mandatory agreement. Graduating students may choose to practise in overserviced areas or outside Canada; however, they will be required to repay the full cost of tuition as subsidized by the Ontario taxpayer."

Let me read the bill.

"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

"1(1) No Canadian resident may enrol in a faculty of medicine in Ontario unless the person has entered into a contract with the crown agreeing to,

"(a) become qualified to practise medicine in Ontario within a period specified in the contract; and

"(b) after becoming qualified, practise medicine in an area of Ontario designated by the Minister of Health for a period specified in the contract.

"(2) It is a term of every contract described in subsection (1) that, in the event of default by the Canadian resident, the amount of the cost of his or her medical education that the crown has paid or subsidized, as determined by the Minister of Health, immediately becomes a debt owing to the crown."

Now you're waiting for the appeal clause. There is no appeal clause. It goes on to say:

"This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

"The short title of this act is the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998."

There is no appeal mechanism. The member told us there was. There is no appeal mechanism in this bill at all, a fundamental flouting of the rights of individuals when their freedom is being curtailed by a bill like this.

Number two, the member talks about this as a way - and I really am so offended. "This bill provides a framework whereby the Ontario government may offer reimbursement to medical students for university tuition costs"? That's not what this does. This requires an indenture. It requires a medical student who wishes to study at an Ontario medical university to indenture himself or herself for an unspecified period of years at the behest of the Minister of Health, with absolutely no way to negotiate the conditions of that contract and no appeal against that contract.

It's passing strange that we would be talking about a bill like this on the very day that we're celebrating the human rights declaration of the United Nations. This government has absolutely ignored the rights of many citizens. It's forbidden welfare recipients their right under the UN declaration to join a trade union. It has consistently regarded human rights as not their priority. It is very interesting that on this very day we're talking about indenturing anyone who wants to study medicine in Ontario without appeal, without any way of having any negotiation about conditions.

This will not resolve the problem. Had the member come across with a bill that in fact gave medical students who volunteered, who wished, who were concerned about access, the ability to sign a contract, if they so chose, to have the amount of their student loans forgiven in return for serving for a certain period of time, if there were a voluntary component to this, it would not be as offensive. It is still coercive in some ways because of course access is very important.

The member also misled the people on this because he talked about the tuition at medical schools as being $4,800 a year in 1996-97 or 1997-98; I can't remember the date he used. The reality is that this government has absolutely deregulated the fees for professional students, including medical students, in this province. The cost of tuition for those students is skyrocketing. It is assumed that the student's part of that tuition, by the time this deregulation takes place, will probably put them in debt to the tune of $75,000 to $100,000 of student loans by the time they finish medical studies. If the member had said that what he was doing was giving the government a mechanism to forgive some of those loans on a voluntary basis, he might actually have had a point.

I am absolutely opposed to this coercive bill. It will not achieve what the member wants to achieve, what all of us want to achieve. I would say to him that this simplistic bully-boy tactic is very typical of this government and is designed to try and convince people that there are simple answers to very complex problems.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I have the privilege to rise and speak on behalf of my colleague Gerry Martiniuk, the member for Cambridge, on his private member's bill entitled the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998.

As the Legislature is aware, this bill addresses the severe shortage of family doctors across Ontario. It also addresses the shortage of doctors in my own riding of Kitchener-Wilmot and areas designated as underserviced by the Ministry of Health. With this bill we will ensure the fair and equitable distribution of physician services across all Ontario.

Many communities in Ontario are in need of a family physician. This bill provides a very practical solution to a historical problem. It will still allow the best and the brightest students in Ontario to continue their attendance at medical school and to serve this province. With much of rural Ontario quickly becoming a high-growth area, Ontario families deserve to have a family doctor close to home. Doctors should practise where they are needed and not just in large urban areas such as Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa.

1130

I believe that we can no longer train doctors for the United States or other parts of the world. This is not acceptable. Ontario's population is rapidly changing. In the next 10 years we will experience the greatest increase in the population of seniors in our history. We must be prepared to respond effectively and efficiently to the health needs of the people of this province.

Dr Ken Babey, secretary of the Society for Rural Physicians of Canada, stated, "Rural and small-town populations continue to increase in size, 10% in total since 1988, yet the number of doctors serving rural communities continues to decrease despite the efforts that have been put into place."

A recently released report, prepared by leading physicians of the Ontario Medical Association and the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, stated that since 1994 the number of doctors in rural areas has declined by 10% and fewer are providing obstetrics and anaesthetic services in their communities. In addition to northern areas, the doctor shortage also plays a major role in southern Ontario. As baby boomers move to the country, the strain on doctors and problems of residents trying to find a family doctor are of grave concern.

Fewer and fewer young surgeons are inclined to go into general surgery as the subspecialties have become more attractive. I believe Mr Martiniuk's private member's bill would change the situation. Through entering into this voluntary contract between the student and the government, it will allow students who wish to practise medicine in Ontario the opportunity to continue to receive full funding for their medical training.

At present, the government has been very active in helping communities recruit family physicians. The Ministry of Health's underserviced area designation works with communities to form recruiting partnerships. This program pays for the travel expenses for possible recruitments to visit the community and invites interested parties to the medical graduate recruitment tour at Ontario universities. Programs such as these emphasize community involvement and grant up to $15,000 per new doctor after one year of recruiting effort.

In addition, on Friday, December 4, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, along with myself and my colleagues, announced in Waterloo region the government's multi-year plan that will bring specialized cardiac services closer to home. This includes two new full-service cardiac care centres in the areas of Waterloo, Wellington and York-Simcoe which will provide cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization, coronary angioplasty, coronary stents and pacemaker services.

Our government has invested in new chronic care beds and community services in Waterloo region. We have spent more than $55 million on health services in Waterloo region since 1995.

We have had considerable success in the area of health care across Ontario. The Ministry of Health has launched many initiatives to improve the quality of health services that the people of our province enjoy.

I have stated the above to show that the Ontario government and the Minister of Health have invested in Ontario and the health care system. It is time our doctors, both young and old, were given the opportunity to demonstrate the same commitment in looking after the diverse needs of Ontario's population, wherever they may reside. Through Mr Martiniuk's bill, he has made it possible for our young physicians to practise medicine where it is needed the most. He has shown that this practice of entering into a partnership is not new to Canada and is successfully practised in other provinces.

I'm happy to support my colleague from Cambridge in his private member's bill.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I have the utmost respect for the member for Cambridge. I know him and have worked with him in committee and have spoken to him on this common problem that we share in both of our constituencies. I would say to the member that this is a desperate measure, for sure, for a very desperate situation. As I said to the member earlier this morning, I am going to support this bill but with great reservations, because it does smack against the philosophy that I've always brought to this problem, that we should always bring incentives using the carrot rather than the stick.

I do accept that this is very coercive, regardless of how some people are trying to sugar-coat this. It is a very coercive bill, there's no doubt about it. I will support it at second reading in order to further the debate and to put some pressure on this government to bring in the proper incentive programs that they should bring in for midsized communities that find themselves underserviced.

Last week I stood in my place here and asked a question of the Minister of Health as to why she was not developing incentive programs for communities that have more than seven doctors. The ministry has developed programs of salary and benefits that are great incentives for those communities that have between one and seven doctors. What is happening now, with this uneven incentive program, is that communities such as Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard in the Tritown area are losing doctors to some of these smaller communities because the incentive package is more attractive for some of these other areas. While I understand the chronic problems of very small communities that are serviced by under seven doctors, midsize communities throughout the province also have a big problem, as has been stated by past speakers.

There needs to be a development of similar but not the same incentives. What I mean by that is that young doctors coming out of medical school find that a salary and benefits package is more attractive than the old fee-for-service system. What we need to do is develop a less rich salary and benefits package for those medium-sized towns that find themselves underserviced so that we can still keep the doctors in the very small communities where the burnout cycle happens very quickly if one or two leave. That is a big problem, and it can sometimes leave a community without a doctor and that's absolutely a crisis.

In the community I represent, Kirkland Lake, 40% of the people do not have a doctor today. To me, that's a crisis. When I hear about a terminally ill cancer patient waiting for her medicine in a waiting room in the hospital because she needs to see a doctor for the administration of the medicine or to get a prescription refill, that's wrong. That's not acceptable in Ontario.

This is very desperate, but maybe it's at least starting to bring this problem to a head, because it is a crisis. If the OMA and the Ministry of Health cannot work this out, then maybe we need to go to desperate measures like this for the desperate situation we find ourselves in in Ontario.

I think doctors should understand that the practice of health is a public service; it's not an entrepreneurial operation. It is a public service like many other occupations are in this province. Like the Peace Corps, there is a need for all of this province to be serviced and maybe we need some sort of program to say, "Upon being granted this education - I know you work hard at it, but there are great subsidies for it - you need to go into the other parts of this province and give some of your time to those desperately underserviced areas."

My colleague from Renfrew North, in quoting from a letter, said you're just going to get a revolving door. Quite frankly, I'd rather have a revolving door of doctors in my community than no doctor at all, and I'm sure that's what the majority of my constituents believe also.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It certainly is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 95, the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998. I commend the member for Cambridge for introducing this bill in the House.

First of all, let me assure you that I feel the bill is not perfect, but I don't think there is any perfect bill that is ever introduced in this House. However, I also feel strongly, like the member for Timiskaming, that rural people in Ontario deserve accessibility to health care just like people in urban Ontario have. In the past we have seen this as a major, chronic problem, that we are underserviced. It is not acceptable. We have to change the way we do things, especially when it comes to medical services.

Will Bill 95 address all the concerns? Of course it will not; however, I think it's a good start. We have to rethink how we are providing health care services in rural Ontario. The member for Timiskaming talked about burnout and the lack of medical practitioners. One major occurrence in rural Ontario is the retention problems we have in maintaining the doctors who are in the community. Why is that? One of the major reasons we have a retention problem is that there is no backup.

I experienced the closure of an emergency this past summer where my community was without 24-hour emergency care for six weeks. Is this acceptable? Of course not.

1140

What did this government do? This government, along with the hospital board of the community, decided they would try to resolve the problem by negotiating with Medemerg, PAIRO and other medical providers in the community. Guess what? At the end of the day, we did find a resolution to the problem. Is it a permanent fix? Probably not. However, somewhere, somehow, we have to start the process.

I realize that not only rural Ontario is having some difficulty; northern Ontario has experienced that same problem. But if we look at the initiatives this government has taken in the past number of years, I think the northern Ontario problem, although not resolved, may not be as bad or to the magnitude that we are experiencing in southwestern Ontario.

If we look at a recent news article that appeared in the London Free Press - for the member for London Centre - on April 17, 1997, it says, "Lambton, Oxford and Elgin counties ranked 44th, 45th and 46th, respectively, out of 49 counties in Ontario." If you live in southwestern Ontario, it's not a bad place to live. Why is it that we are having difficulty attracting and retaining medical practitioners? We're not having any difficulty attracting and retaining dentists, chiropractors and other medical practitioners.

I should point out to the member for London Centre that I did have the opportunity of working in the health care field in your community a number of years ago, in the 1960s. It shows how old I am, and maybe not so wise. We did have some problems in the 1960s. Consequently, it is not a problem that has occurred in the past three or four years.

I know the member for London Centre has difficulty in supporting anything this government or members of this government bring to the fore. However, as I pointed out, Bill 95 certainly is not perfect, but I think once we combine it with other initiatives that this government has taken with regard to meeting the needs of the underserviced areas in rural Ontario, that will go a long way towards making sure that the people of rural Ontario receive a decent level of primary health care.

We have to also look at the fact that PAIRO, the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, as you pointed out, did come up with a very good report. I think they understand the chronic problem and the difficulties that rural Ontario has experienced in the past number of years. However, how much co-operation have they received from the Ontario Medical Association in trying to address this particular problem? I'll leave that question with you.

Mrs Boyd: So they should bear the whole brunt of it, then.

The Acting Speaker: Member for London Centre.

Mr Beaubien: Another point that hasn't been brought up today is, what about the role of the nurse practitioner in providing primary health care in Ontario? What is wrong with that? Consequently, as legislators, as responsible citizens, as representatives of this province, I think we have to make sure that we have a decent level of primary health care in the province.

I agree that Bill 95 is not perfect but I think it will go a long way towards trying to address the problem we are experiencing in rural Ontario, and I commend the member for Cambridge for introducing that bill.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is with some pleasure that we get an opportunity here today to talk about one of the main problems this government has created in terms of health care. I want to commend the member for at least one element of his bill today, which is to condemn his own government, because it's the only way we can understand what is in this bill. We're being told that physicians have to be forced to go to communities, that this government at this late stage in its mandate has done nothing to improve the central tenet of medicare, which is to make sure people have access to medical care.

We look at the checklist of what has happened. In rural areas, where the population has grown by 10%, the supply of doctors has dropped by 10%.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Perth.

Mr Kennedy: That's what's happened under Mike Harris and that's what the member for Cambridge seems to be telling us.

Not only is it a question of new doctors; doctors are leaving the province in record numbers under Mike Harris. Why are they doing that? The clues to that are there in front of us, and what we have to contest with this member is what he has said about his own area. To be oblivious to the idea, as each of the members opposite surely can't afford to be, they're creating a climate where it is more difficult and in some cases impossible for physicians to practise medicine.

Let's just look at the Kitchener-Waterloo region. How much money has been taken out?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Yes, let's look at the Kitchener-Waterloo region.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener.

Mr Kennedy: Over $16 million has been removed from local hospitals; $4.3 million net from the Cambridge hospital alone is gone.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls, you're not in your seat.

Mr Kennedy: It has led to waiting lists, to denial of access to surgery, to the cancellation of surgery. Look at that whole region. It's still proposed by this government, of which the proposer and the endorser of this bill is a member, to remove not only $14 million but a further $24 million in services - cut, taken away, removed from that area.

Is that going to help physicians practise in those communities? Is that what's going to uphold medicare? It's not. While I commend the member for raising this issue, we are looking at a government that has stripped down the capacity of this province to provide health care. I would invite this member to show us what I believe is his sincerity on this issue by joining with me in condemning this government for cutting $24 million further from the medical services that are available in his region, that he would do that today to ensure that doesn't happen the day after an election should this government, in that speculative way, be returned.

Let's look at what the member has talked about. The member is saying to us, and I agree with this, we have a crisis in terms of the access to physicians. The member is saying the solution to that is to respond in five to eight years, to wait five to eight years for some people who have signed contracts to come through the system, who will then be made available to the system. That's what he's saying.

And he's saying about his own community of Cambridge, not a rural area - and let's remember that under this government in the last year 30 additional, brand-new communities have been designated as underserviced because of the dereliction by this government.

This government signed an agreement with the OMA, with doctors in this province, in 1996, and in that agreement they promised to address this problem by spending some $40-million-plus a year. We stand almost two years away from the signing of that agreement, and we find that this government has spent less than $3 million or $4 million of the promised funds, which by now would have been $100 million, recognized at that time by this government. So we appreciate that what the member does in raising the bill today is to condemn his own government for not having done what it promised the rural and remote communities of this province it would do and it has failed to do.

Each of the members who speaks in support of this bill, I presume, subscribes to that view. They do not believe their own government. They do not believe that their own government will provide any other response and that the only thing that will possibly address things is to force people to go to lovely communities, to communities that offer tremendous quality of life, like Cambridge, to compel them to go there in five to eight years. That, we're meant to believe, is the response required by this House. That is the best ingenuity that we can see from members who represent desperate people getting services, not just in rural communities but in communities like Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor, going to emergency rooms, waiting for eight hours for basic medical care because this government has failed to provide any alternatives.

I appreciate this is a private member's bill, done in good faith, but we have to understand that some of its attraction to the members opposite is that it follows the sad approach of many initiatives of this government, which is to prey on the very real frustrations that people have, to attack someone, to attack and divide; to also provide no real solution. Five to eight years is too long to wait. There are solutions available.

In terms of what this government could be doing, they know that alternative payment options would get doctors in communities today. They know that better education, getting more doctors educated in the communities that are missing doctors, would solve that problem this year, not five years from now. They know also that if they were able to get area residents in contact with some of the people at an early stage in their education, that would work.

The reality this bill ignores is that half of the doctors today are women. They have families that need to fit into communities.

There needs to be a response to this problem, but most of all, if we're going to deal with the crisis of physician access, we need a government that is determined to live up to one simple thing: access to a doctor or primary care no matter where you live in this province. This bill won't do that.

1150

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My compliments to the member for Cambridge for thinking outside of the box, the traditional way of looking at how we get physicians into underserviced areas. Certainly we've talked with physicians. Not only have the previous two governments talked to them, but our government prior to that talked to them about getting an even distribution in Ontario, bringing equality of services.

I think it's most unfortunate that both of the opposition parties would take a partisan position on this and condemn this particular private member's bill when, and I'm not saying it's a perfect bill by any means, some value added would be more in order.

As the member opposite mentioned, we could also talk about veterinarians. How about dentists? Maybe that's a way of getting them into underserviced areas. But if you look at dentists and veterinarians, most underserviced areas are already being looked after. If you want to know why, have a check in the Fraser Forum, November issue, the article called, "In Case of Hernia, Dress as a Cat." Maybe you'll understand why the services from veterinarians do look after all areas and there is equality; there's no monopoly there.

One of the problems we have is distribution. In the article on April 17, 1997, they point out Middlesex county, where there is a teaching hospital at the University of Western Ontario, where graduates like to stay. The need for that community is 374; they had an oversupply at that time of 170. I can understand why. In the past I thought it was a privilege to have hospital admitting privileges, but in rural Ontario it's not a privilege; it's rather a labour that is laid upon them which they really would prefer not to have. They'd rather be in their office running people through and getting the office calls. It's been a real frustration in my riding of Northumberland.

Back in 1994 there was a big feature article in the Toronto Star about lack of physician services both in Brighton and in Campbellford. Right now my understanding is that Brighton is reasonably well served while Campbellford is still extremely underserviced. It hasn't been designated as an underserviced area, but it really should be. I can't think of a prettier community on the Trent River, with the Trent River going right through it. It's a place that every physician in this country, literally, would like to retire to. It's one of the most picturesque communities that you'd ever come across. But yet to go and serve in that hospital and have hospital admitting "privileges" is not advantageous to physicians.

They would much rather be in Toronto and the big centres where there's academia, at teaching hospitals. That does have an attraction to any physician, anyone who has graduated from a university. There's a draw there. That's happening with Kingston, Toronto, London, Hamilton and so on.

The other area that bothers me very much is to see the figures on the use of tests. In Toronto, the cost for tests is approximately $50 per person, whereas in rural Ontario it runs more around $26, $27, $28, another inequity. Is that brought about by the number of physicians in the overserviced versus the underserviced areas? I don't know for sure but one would have to suspect.

Anyway, I certainly commend the member for Cambridge for looking outside of the box.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've got to say I'm astounded at the bill that the member has brought forward in the present form that he has given us. I thought I had seen a lot of things from the Conservative government, but never did I think I would see a bill written quite the way this one is.

In effect, what this bill says is that if you choose to become a doctor in the future, should this bill pass, you would be indentured; you would be a slave to the government of Ontario. You would not be able to get into one of our universities unless you signed a contract with the government and then fulfilled the terms of the contract that you signed. I don't know where that is done anywhere in the free world. It certainly is not something that I stand for as a New Democrat, that should be done here in the province of Ontario.

If the member had brought forward a bill that said, "We are going to put in place a mechanism that will allow you to choose, should you so desire, to practise in an underserviced community at the end of your training, and you can have your tuition fee either paid for or partly subsidized by way of some kind of contract," I'd be more than prepared to support that kind of legislation. Many people who are studying in medicine would probably support that. A lot of people in underserviced areas would support that.

But that's not what this bill does. This bill says: "You want to be a doctor in Ontario? Step up and sign on the dotted line, my friend, because that's the only way you're going to get into a university in Ontario. And by the way, once you've signed that agreement, you're beholden to us, the province of Ontario, and you can't do a tinker's damn about it because we'll make this legislatively so that every person in Ontario forthwith, after this bill is passed, who wants to become a doctor in the universities of Ontario will have no choice but to sign this contract and be indentured to the province of Ontario."

That is not what democracy is about. That is not what good education is about. This is what dictatorships are made of and this is not beholden of the values that the people of Ontario believe in.

I say again, if the member had brought forward a bill that said, "We will make it possible for people to choose," then so be it. What really disturbs me is that that member sent me and a whole bunch of other members in this assembly a letter which said quite the opposite of what the bill says. I was prepared to come into this House and support it based on the letter that I saw from this member that said, "The bill allows you to choose and then allows you to negotiate and then allows you to have an appeal to get out should you want to get out of your contractual agreement with the province of Ontario." I said to one of the Conservative members this morning, "On that basis, I will listen to the debate, and I will make up my mind based on the debate."

It is clear that this member, when he sent that letter, misled me and misled every member in this assembly by way of his letter -

The Acting Speaker: Order. Take your seat. I guess you realize the word that you used. I want you to withdraw it, with no comments.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word.

I feel very strongly about this. We are all honourable members within this assembly but, I'll tell you, when a member of this assembly sends me a letter that says quite the opposite to what he put in his bill, I don't know what else to call it. I have to hope that the member would at least have the guts to stand up in this House and apologize for having sent a letter that quite frankly misled me and other people to believe that this bill -

The Acting Speaker: Twice in a row. I won't accept that. You're playing with the procedures. I want you to withdraw it, and if you don't, I'll make sure that I will name you. Stand up and withdraw.

Mr Bisson: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Martiniuk, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Martiniuk: I only have two minutes and there's much to cover.

I would like to thank the member for Renfrew North, who spoke against the bill but provided no alternatives.

The member for London Centre is protecting her constituency. It's parochial. She is being overserviced and it's all cosy and she's protecting her little nest. I understand that. However, it's time we in this House started to look at the province as a whole. These are desperate times in my riding. I have 15,000 people who are not serviced by a family physician and I put it to the member for London Centre: Look at my people. Don't just try to feather your nest.

Mr Bisson: We are looking at your people. That's why we're going to vote against this bill, you moron.

Mr Martiniuk: The member for Cochrane South is the member for Cochrane South.

I'd like to thank the member for Northumberland, the member for York South and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for their comments. I hope I can seek your support in regard to this bill.

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 37, standing in the name of Ms Churley / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 88. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Interjection: The ayes were a little bit louder, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's it.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 38. Mr Martiniuk has moved second reading of Bill 95. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The divisions bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boushy, Dave

Boyd, Marion

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Saunderson, William

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Stewart, R. Gary

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bradley, James. J

Johnson, Bert

Tilson, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 3.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yes, I would like the bill referred to the committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Could you open the doors for 30 seconds, please. Thank you.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Chudleigh, Ted

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cullen, Alex

Ford, Douglas B.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 23.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Could I request, Mr Speaker, that it be referred to the finance and economic affairs committee?

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The majority is in favour. I believe you said -

Mr Martiniuk: Yes, finance and economic affairs.

The Acting Speaker: So be it.

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

The House adjourned from 1214 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARE WATCH

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I rise today to commend the Care Watch phoneline committee for its efforts in providing a phone line in Toronto whereby consumers, caregivers and others can anonymously call to express their concern on the quality of care being provided in the community-based health care system. Care Watch phoneline will turn over the information they receive from these calls, which may show gaps and inadequacies in services, to the Ministry of Health, the Toronto community care access centres and others.

All of us in this House have witnessed the chaos and crisis created by the Harris government's inadequate funding and cutbacks to health care in our province. It is a fact verified by a recent family physicians' study on home care which concluded that the funding level for home services is totally inadequate. The Ontario Nurses' Association has also been warning that home care services are being rationed or not provided at all.

Care Watch phoneline Toronto is truly helping patients with personal difficulties in the health care system. They are focused on helping patients who have been abandoned and have lost necessary homemaking and personal care services because of the government's refusal to provide enough funding.

What more evidence does this government need of the suffering it is imposing on the old and infirm, when a network of individual consumer organizations has to dedicate a phone line to advocate better service?

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Merritton High School in Merritton, the latest on the casualty list of this government's school closures, with a long history in a very distinct community and the focal point of that old community of Merritton, shut down; wiped off the face of the map by this government's anti-education policies, this government's refusal to adequately fund public education and this government's disdain for quality publicly funded education notwithstanding the best efforts - and I commend the parents and the students of Merritton High School and members of the community who organized and rallied and appealed to the District School Board of Niagara.

The District School Board of Niagara had little choice in the matter. Don Reilly, the chair of that board, made it quite clear, made it very clear that it was this government's funding policies that forced the closure of Merritton High School.

But you can't blame the district board of education. You wish they had the resources that would have enabled them to keep Merritton High School open. It's Mike Harris and the Tory members of this Legislature who shut down Merritton High School, make no mistake about it.

The people of Merritton have every intention of holding those Tory members accountable, because not one of those Tory members stood up to speak out on behalf of Merritton High School, not one of them will stand up to speak out on behalf of neighbourhood schools and indeed of communities like Merritton that are being ravaged and slashed by this government's policies.

Merritton High School deserves to survive, and the defeat of this government is the only thing that will ensure that.

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It's with great pleasure today that I bring to this Legislature another world-class accomplishment of Brampton firefighters.

On November 8 of this year, the Brampton firefighters' combat challenge A team returned from Florida with yet another world championship title. Following up on an impressive 1996 world championship title, the team claimed the 1998 title in the time of four minutes, 55 seconds - the first team ever to break the five-minute barrier in world competition.

This physically demanding competition was a simulation of real firefighting tasks. Completed in full firefighter gear, it involves a high-rise stair climb in full high-rise gear and a 40-pound hose roll, dragging a charged hose for 75 feet and a 175-pound dummy 100 feet, and a simulated forced entry.

I personally congratulate the combat challenge team members: Brent Hastings, Peter Reid, Mark Evans, Rob Wohlfeld and Scott Hewlitt, and their coach, Doug Comeau. A special congratulations to team member Brent Hastings, who was the fastest man in the world on the skill-testing course, completing it in a record time of one minute, 32 seconds.

On behalf of the Legislature of Ontario, our congratulations to this well-deserving, outstanding Brampton firefighting team.

WORKFARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I cannot let the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights pass without commenting on how Bill 22, an act to prevent unionization with respect to workfare, violates the declaration.

A UN committee that oversees the implementation of the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had some comments about Bill 22. It said, "The committee considers the act to be a clear violation of article 8 of the covenant and calls upon the [governing] party to take measures to repeal the offending provisions."

The United Nations is an institution that we all love to quote when they say something nice about us. When they declare us the number one country in the world in which to live, we all take great pride. But when they report on some problems with our system, I believe it's our responsibility to listen very carefully and to immediately address them.

This week, citizens all over the world are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This widely respected document asserts that there are certain inalienable human rights, among them freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The United Nations has now taken the time to study and analyze Bill 22. They are singling out Bill 22 and saying that it is in contravention of agreed-upon fundamental rights.

If the government seriously believes that Ontarians are worthy of basic human rights, it must take heed of what the United Nations has to say about Bill 22. This is indeed a very serious matter.

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I stand today to mourn the loss of my federal member of Parliament from Windsor-St Clair, Shaughnessy Cohen. I've known Shaughnessy Cohen for over 15 years, and although we weren't at the University of Windsor at the same time, we both were graduates from there. We practised law together in Windsor and served as assistant crown attorneys in Essex county.

Although we may have had our philosophical differences of opinion, we always enjoyed a relationship of friendship and respect. One thing we shared was a commitment to our community. As the mayor of Windsor, Mike Hurst, yesterday said upon learning of her passing: "She loved Windsor. She was one of this city's great boosters."

Recently, as chair of the House of Commons justice committee, she shepherded through amendments to the Criminal Code that permit dice games in the casino in Windsor. She was also working on the Ron Ianni tribute dinner. Ron Ianni was the former president of the University of Windsor. She was also working on the issues surrounding the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge.

Shaughnessy loved life. I had dinner with her last Saturday evening and she was bubbly and enthusiastic. I sympathize on her passing and offer condolences to her husband, Jerry, and her family.

1340

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify for the public the issue of hospital closures, not only in Ontario but across Canada.

According to statistics, in the last two years Nova Scotia closed 11 hospitals, while New Brunswick closed two. Both of these provinces have, incidentally, Liberal held governments. In BC, 20 hospitals were closed and two in Saskatchewan - they're run by the NDP.

I would like to point out that Ontario hospital closures come at a time of increased new technologies, innovations and new drug therapies. Change was both inevitable and needed. The latest medical technology allows us to focus on prevention and community-based services.

Also, as demographics change, we must change to meet the needs of a growing, changing and aging baby boom population as we enter the 21st century. Our government recently announced a $1.2-billion expenditure to expand long-term care across Ontario and to build new long-term-care facilities. Overall, the Harris government is now spending more money on health care than any other previous government in Ontario.

As we look at the hospital closures in every province, we can clearly see that hospitals had to adapt to the changing demographics in order to deliver adequate health care. The fact that hospitals are closing in each province, regardless of which party is in government, flies in the face of the members opposite, all of whom are holding on to -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have repeatedly raised the crisis of rural doctor shortages to Mike Harris and Elizabeth Witmer, but they refuse to act. The Harris government has the power to pass government laws any time. Why use private members' bills and resolutions, except to test the political waters?

I voted for Mr Martiniuk's bill today, even though it is totally wrong-headed, because at least it recognizes an urgent problem that Mike Harris has refused to address. But I do not believe punitive measures will solve the problem. The government must introduce meaningful incentives to encourage doctors to practise in rural, underserviced areas. Mike Harris must lift the freeze on community health centres and introduce government legislation to fund nurse practitioners as part of the answer.

Nurse practitioners have submitted a report with solutions. The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario have offered many reports with solutions. Why won't you listen to them, Premier? They want to help. The Ridgetown and District Future Fund Group called me because they want the problem fixed.

Introduce government legislation immediately. You have the power. I am also calling on Minister Witmer to extend the underserviced designation to the entire municipality of Chatham-Kent. Totally, it needs almost 40 doctors. Designation is supposed to apply to municipal units. You made Chatham-Kent one municipality. Premier, extend the designation to all of it now.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Today is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first draft was by a Canadian, John Humphrey, a colleague of Frank Scott in Montreal.

Some of the rights established by the United Nations include the right to life, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention. The United Nations also recognizes the rights of all peoples to self-determination.

Three years ago, on the night of September 6, 1995, 300 heavily armed Ontario Provincial Police officers massed at Ipperwash Provincial Park to lead an 11 pm assault on less than 30 unarmed aboriginal protesters. This small group had occupied the park to defend an ancient cemetery of the Stony Point First Nation's people. Several hours later, Dudley George was shot dead as a result of a shot from a laser-guided, semi-automatic OPP weapon. Another aboriginal man was severely beaten. Two protesters were wounded by police gunfire; another four were detained in police custody. No charges were laid against them.

This case raises serious issues about the current Ontario government's response to aboriginal peoples and its commitment to human rights, to treaty rights and to the inherent rights of aboriginals. When anyone's human rights are denied, the rights of all of us -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

CHIRS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I rise today to speak about the Community Head Injury Resource Services of Metropolitan Toronto, also known as CHIRS, and the programs it offers to Ontarians across this province.

CHIRS, originally known as Ashby House, was the first transitional-living, community-based program for adults with brain injuries in North America.

On Monday, December 7, I had the pleasure of representing the Minister of Long-Term Care, my colleague the Honourable Cam Jackson, in officially opening the unique long-term, community-based residential program in Scarborough.

This is the largest program of its kind in Canada, with a total of 20 people with acquired brain injuries, ABI for short, living in these units and being supported by CHIRS on a 24-hour basis. These units were specifically built to meet the needs of individuals with moderate to severe brain injuries, most of whom have been repatriated from the United States over the past few years.

The outreach and residential programs will improve the quality of life for individuals with brain injuries by giving them greater independence and bringing them closer to their families.

The work of CHIRS and centres like it is a clear and compelling example of the new philosophy that is guiding the evolution of Ontario's health services, and of our continuing care services in particular.

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to say a few words about a federal colleague who passed away yesterday.

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

Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to my colleagues in the Legislature.

Yesterday we lost a colleague, all of us, a woman who was more than just a member of Parliament to, I know, many in this House on all sides of the House. She was a good friend for many years to many of us and the loss of Shaughnessy Cohen is felt by I think everybody who knew her.

Shaughnessy had a wonderful sense of humour and a very deep partisan streak, as one would expect, that she used to great effect. But I think it's a tribute to Shaughnessy that in the House today in Ottawa, members of all five caucuses there stood up to pay tribute. I know the Attorney General, Mr Harnick, went to law school with Shaughnessy. I want to thank Mr Palladini, who took time out of his schedule today to visit Shaughnessy's constituency office in Windsor to pay his respects on behalf of the government of Ontario. I know my colleagues Sandra Pupatello and Wayne Lessard held Shaughnessy in the same regard as so many of us. All of us were deeply saddened and shocked.

For me it was particularly hard because we have been friends for more than 20 years. She was a wonderful person. As the Prime Minister said of her today, "She represented all that was good in parliamentarians and legislators throughout this country, people in all parties. She had a deep intellect, a wonderful sense of humour. She was a tireless worker for her community."

Mr Speaker, if it's appropriate I would ask you to observe a moment's silence in memory of Shaughnessy Cohen and extend to her husband, Jerry, and daughter, Dena, our deep, deep sense of loss.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise as well to mourn the loss of my federal member of Parliament from Windsor-St Clair, Shaughnessy Cohen.

As I indicated earlier during members' statements, I've known Mrs Cohen for over 15 years. Although we weren't at the University of Windsor law school at the same time, we did graduate from that school. We both became lawyers in the city of Windsor, and through our practice both became assistant crown attorneys in Essex county. As a result our paths crossed, and as a result of both of our elections our paths continued to cross. Although we had our philosophical differences of opinion through the years, we always enjoyed a relationship of friendship and respect, and we were always able to work together on issues that were going to benefit our community.

Shaughnessy was always known as a very tough partisan fighter when it came to issues in our community. As the mayor of Windsor said yesterday upon hearing of her passing: "She loved Windsor. She was one of this city's great boosters."

She was also, as I said, a fighter and in her own words - this is from the Windsor Star today - "I'm not shy. I'm hard to intimidate, and I have some difficulty speaking in code, so as a result I sometimes get myself into trouble because I'm fairly straightforward in terms of what I say and how I say it." I think that was one of the things that the people in our community respected, that she was a tough fighter, she was a straight-shooter and she will be missed by our community.

I want to express my condolences to her husband, Jerry, and her family, and say once again how much I mourn her passing. Life is too short. We all need to live it to its fullest and do the best we can with the time we have. I know that's what Shaughnessy Cohen was doing as she represented the constituents in Windsor-St Clair.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I too, on behalf of the government caucus, wish to extend our deepest sympathy to Shaughnessy's family, friends and loved ones in Windsor, and to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the comments that everyone has made.

To die at the age of 50, when you're in the prime of your life and making the kind of contribution that Shaughnessy Cohen was making in the federal Parliament and for the country and for her community, which she was deeply passionate about, is a great tragedy.

I know very well of her work in the federal justice committee, the leadership she took on issues that she and I did not always agree on, but I can tell you that she was passionately partisan for her beliefs, for her party and for the country.

In a very short period of time, she distinguished herself in the House of Commons. She was well known everywhere throughout the country for the work she was doing, and she will be missed by the people of Windsor, the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

We extend our sympathies to her family and to her many friends.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Would you please rise and join me in a moment of silence in memory of Shaughnessy Cohen.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: Thank you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Once again I rise and I want to commend and thank all members and the staff for their hard work in all our committee's legislation.

I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The standing committee on administration of justice presents the committee's report as follows:

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

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Law Society Act / Projet de loi 53, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Barreau.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

Mr Silipo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 97, An Act to establish the Hummingbird Performing Arts Centre Corporation / Projet de loi 97, Loi créant la Société du Centre Hummingbird des arts d'interprétation.

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

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): This bill establishes a new non-profit corporation to operate the Hummingbird Centre, provides for the dissolution of the existing corporation and deals with transitional issues. I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to bring this bill about.

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 56

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with regard to Bill 56, the Greater Toronto Services Board Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that notwithstanding standing order 76(b), which requires a bill to be reprinted after being amended in committee, the House may proceed with the third reading stage 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, during this evening's sitting.

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

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on public accounts.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet on Monday, December 14, 1998, from 10 am to 12 pm.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS / AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX AGRICULTEURS

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I'm very pleased to rise today to share some very good news with my colleagues. I am pleased to tell you that the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, will provide some much-needed interim assistance to our beleaguered farmers.

I full well realize that for some, this good news will come as a surprise. After all, the government is doing all it can to reduce expenditures. This government also recognizes the tremendous contribution that our agriculture industry makes to the economic well-being of this province, and this government is committed to ensuring that this indeed continues.

I would like to briefly recap some of the events of this past year that have caused our farmers such despair that they felt compelled to voice their fears and concerns on the lawn at Queen's Park here last week.

First, the storm that blanketed eastern Ontario with ice, knocking out power grids and communications and transportation networks for almost a full month in early 1998, is something that happened.

Then we had a spring and summer marked with sporadic and uneven rainfall. Some parts of Ontario, including Grey and Bruce counties, declared themselves drought-stricken.

Next, a sudden late-summer hailstorm ravaged the crops of many apple producers in Northumberland and area.

Now, Ontario's farmers are facing the consequences of the downturn in the global economy, stockpiled grains and a global oversupply of pork.

It adds up to a very difficult situation, much of it beyond the control of our food producers.

There is no doubt that we must help Ontario's farming communities through this crisis, and that is exactly what we are going to do. The government of Ontario will provide interim financial assistance to help all farmers, including our hard-hit pork producers, our grain and oilseed producers and our beef farmers, to help them weather this worldwide economic storm.

To do this, we are committing up to $40 million to an Ontario whole farm relief program. This includes $30 million to provide some immediate financial relief to our farmers and a further $10 million to flow later. This $40 million is over and above our existing commitment to the current package of safety net programs for Ontario farmers. This is new money.

Le gouvernement de l'Ontario fournira une aide financière intérimaire pour aider tous les agriculteurs, y compris nos éleveurs de porc, nos producteurs de céréales et de plantes oléagineuses, et nos éleveurs de bétail, pour les aider à traverser cette crise d'envergure mondiale.

Pour accomplir ceci, nous consacrons jusqu'à 40 $ millions à un programme de secours global aux exploitations agricoles. De ce montant, 30 $ millions seront alloués immédiatement à une aide financière aux agriculteurs et 10 $ millions seront versés plus tard. Cette somme de 40 $ millions vient s'ajouter aux programmes existants de protection du revenu des agriculteurs ontariens.

There are major cash flow problems in rural Ontario. We know that this program will be difficult to implement but it will be set up quickly and administered fairly. We hope that as early as February 1999 our front-line food producers will have cheques in hand.

1400

Now what we will be able to provide in the short term comes nowhere close to covering the tremendous losses some of our farmers have experienced this year. I wish this were not the case, but for several important reasons we cannot cover these costs completely. Even if the provincial coffers were full to bursting, we couldn't do this because it could open our agri-food industry to countervailing duty and other reprisals from our trading partners.

Let me be clear: This is not a direct subsidy for just one commodity. Instead, we are providing support to all participating farmers in cases where the gross margin of their total farm income falls below 70% of the preceding three- to five-year average. This will be part of a national whole farm income disaster program.

This interim payment buys us time, and we all must use this time wisely. These funds will greatly help to alleviate a very serious cash flow crisis. It buys time for producers to take stock of their situations and time to develop a national whole farm income disaster program that will make interim programs such as the one I am announcing today a thing of the past. That is our long-term goal.

We made the commitment this past summer at the annual meeting of federal, provincial and territorial agricultural ministers to have such a national whole farm income disaster program in place by the year 2000-01 but, as I say, we're acting now. In the last few days I've spoken with my federal colleague the Honourable Lyle Vanclief. I wanted to let him know that we are fully prepared to work with him and our colleagues in other provinces on the national whole farm income disaster program and to make it a reality now.

That will be a key element in promoting some stability and some predictability when it comes to earning a living from agriculture in Canada because, as unusual as this year has been with its freakish combination of natural and economic adversities, it inevitably will happen again. We will hope for the best but we will plan for the worst.

It is, after all, in everyone's best interest to ensure the continued viability of our agri-food industry and the sustained viability of Ontario's agricultural and farming communities, not just because it adds some $25 billion to our provincial economy each year, not just because it employs 640,000 people across the province, but because, in addition to creating wealth and providing jobs, Ontario's incredibly diverse agri-food industry makes an unrivalled contribution to the quality of life we all enjoy in this province and often take for granted.

Because of that, this government is committed to ensuring that our agriculture and food sector retains its diversity - producing high-quality fruits and vegetables, grains and oilseeds, dairy and eggs, beef, poultry and of course pork, and much, much more - and remains a vibrant, productive thread in the fabric of our society. When the agri-food sector prospers in Ontario, we as consumers all benefit.

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): On this day, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it's my pleasure to announce the five recipients of the Government of Ontario Award for Outstanding Achievement in Human Rights, a special award created to help mark this milestone.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a history-making document signed just three years after the end of the Second World War. The declaration has proven to be the source of inspiration for a wide variety of human rights protections both here and around the world.

Ontario's leadership role in the protection of human rights dates back to the earliest pioneer days, when our first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe, passed an anti-slavery decree in 1793, a full 70 years before Abraham Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation.

The government's award has been created to help Ontarians celebrate the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration as well as the more than two centuries of human rights legislation in this province.

Let me name and briefly describe the contributions of each of the five recipients of the Ontario Government Award for Outstanding Achievement in Human Rights.

First, the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, from Hamilton, is a human rights visionary who continues through his words and deeds to have an impact on Ontario society. When Mr Alexander was elected in Hamilton West in 1968, he became the first black member of Parliament, and in 1985 he became the first black Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. His dedicated public service and his years of successful leadership have opened many formerly closed doors for others to follow. Mr Alexander has established an awards program for young people who demonstrate leadership in combating discrimination and racism within their school or community.

The second recipient, the late Right Honourable Brian Dickson of Ottawa, is remembered as a brilliant legal mind, one of Canada's foremost chief justices of the Supreme Court and an interpreter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court, under Dickson's stewardship between 1984 and 1990, helped to define the debate about who we are as Canadians. His work in determining the terms of reference for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples will have a lasting impact on the improvement of human rights in this country. His legacy includes the recent formation of the Dickson Circle, a group of senior lawyers from private law firms who donate their time and expertise to act as counsel for ARCH, a not-for-profit legal resource centre for people with disabilities.

The third recipient is the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County. It was founded 25 years ago to encourage harmony, understanding and knowledge among the region's diverse population. Through its programs, partnerships, and success in galvanizing volunteers, the council has played a significant role in promoting the strength of diversity that we have here in Ontario. It has earned the high regard of the community it serves through its years of service, influence and effectiveness.

The fourth recipient is Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, of Toronto. He is a long-standing champion of human rights. Rabbi Plaut's capacity to cut through to the heart of any issue and his ability to achieve consensus among conflicting opinions are the hallmarks of his success. A prolific author, Rabbi Plaut first came to Ontario in 1961 by way of the United States after fleeing Naziism in his native Germany. Rabbi Plaut was a founder of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the North York Committee on Community Race and Ethnic Relations, and has served as vice-chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. He has demonstrated remarkable leadership in fighting for the dignity, equality and security of the disadvantaged.

The fifth recipient is Nancy Ruth, of Toronto, who is a tireless advocate for women's rights. Over the last 20 years, Nancy Ruth has helped and supported a number of projects designed to ensure meaningful equality for women and girls in Ontario and in Canada. Leading among these projects are the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF, as it is known, and the Canadian Women's Foundation. Through her private foundation, Nancy's Very Own Foundation, Nancy Ruth has championed a broad range of women's issues aimed at fundamental change and equality.

1410

These five recipients of the Government of Ontario Award for Outstanding Achievement in Human Rights represent the high standards of performance and commitment to human rights that we proudly uphold in Ontario. Their voices and their combined efforts are a treasured part of the history of this province.

On this day, I would also like to pay tribute to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the first such commission in Canada. Earlier this week two commission staff, Lori Rainone and Lorraine Graham-Watson, received the Ontario public service's Amethyst Award for developing and using leading-edge information technology to improve case management and client service. I congratulate them, and those who have led the commission over the past quarter-century, for their critically important work in protecting human rights in Ontario.

The 50th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights represents an important challenge for the world. All Ontarians can rightly take pride in our heritage on human rights, but we must not become complacent and there is still work to be done. As we approach the next millennium, let us ensure that the legacies established by these recipients of the Government of Ontario Award for Outstanding Achievement in Human Rights are represented in all we do.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I ask for unanimous consent, Speaker, to expand the time for opposition responses, due to the fact that we haven't had unanimous consent as yet for statements by all parties on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? I heard a no.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I am pleased to respond to the minister's remarks on his announcement of a whole-farm relief program.

Indeed there is a crisis within the agricultural industry and much of it deals with low prices of commodities. We have heard today from the ministry and the minister conflicting reports that the interim monies that would flow could occur in January, perhaps February, perhaps March. It is imperative that this money flow as soon as possible. It must be new money and cannot be taken out of existing agricultural programs, either now or in the future. This plan must not infringe on the integrity of crop insurance, NISA or market revenue. These are valued programs enjoyed by all producers in Ontario.

We hope creditors will work with producers in the interim, during this difficult time, and will understand that the money from the government will eventually flow.

I say, in conclusion, that the best rural job strategy is support for our farmers and the agricultural industry.

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to respond to the award-winners of the human rights awards. I know they are all worthy and indeed outstanding Canadians, as well as in the multicultural community. In the absence of an opportunity today to speak to the anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, I'm sure they would concur that speaking about that now in no way takes away from the honour that has been bestowed upon them.

The declaration is regarded by many to be one of the great achievements of the United Nations. What it essentially does is set forth a list of inalienable rights for all individuals and thereby issues a challenge to humankind to uphold them. In upholding this standard, humanity would be taking a great step forward in eliminating the manmade suffering and deprivation with which we have so often been plagued.

Unfortunately, the abuse of fundamental human rights both personally and systemically is ongoing. We have a long way to go, not just in the Third World but in our own backyard as well. We would do well to remember that.

Similar to any great and transcendent constitutional document, its spirit is probably best summarized in its own introduction: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

I would like to direct some of my remarks on the occasion of this anniversary to one of the declaration's chief architects. Many of you may not know that the main author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a distinguished Canadian, John Humphrey. Unfortunately, it was many years before the world legitimately recognized him as the principal architect of this document. At one point, the Nobel Peace Prize was erroneously given to another person, even though his role in writing it was not anywhere near as important as John Humphrey's had been.

He was a true Canadian in his understated and modest style about the controversy that surrounded who had actually written the document. He was a very humble individual. Never was he naive about the world in which he lived, though. He knew that the United Nations declaration would systematically be ignored by a significant number of rogue states. At times it would be flouted by liberal democracies as well. He knew that in reality the document was in no way binding on all of its signatories.

But Humphrey knew that something was more important. I'd like to quote from the eloquent words that were written of him when he passed away three years ago:

"He remained an optimist. He was persuaded that, like water on a stone, the noble tenets of the declaration had the power over time to wear down the forces of darkness and barbarism."

I believe that there is a great deal that can be learned from the life of this great Canadian and his achievement. The dignified universal principles that are contained in the declaration are things that we would do well to remember as chosen representatives of the citizens of this province, especially when we at times are carried away amid the partisan clamour and the day-to-day business in this assembly, as we see as I speak.

I am proud to stand here today to join with, I'm sure, all members in a non-partisan way in recognizing the extraordinary achievement of John Humphrey and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its 50th anniversary.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to also pay tribute to those who are receiving the awards today as people who are distinguished for their contribution to human rights.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Is this a solid first step? Farmers in Ontario are at best expressing cautious optimism today. This program is missing a lot of detail in spite of the government's protests, in spite of the minister's laying of blame on the dragging of feet by the federal Liberals.

The government has a responsibility. The provincial government is going to have to make some serious decisions about this program, and soon. Some farmers in this province are losing up to $10,000 a week. They can't wait and listen while the provincial government blames others for its own inadequacy.

The government has not determined whether the NISA contributions will be considered fixed costs or an operating expense for the gross margin calculation that is crucial in determining the level of support. The government has not determined what will be done for farmers who are in a negative gross margin situation, and absolutely nothing has been done for cases where a farm family had a period of no income in the previous five years due to disasters. The government admits that this support will not be sufficient to sustain all farming operations here in Ontario.

The families that grow our food here in Ontario have said over and over again that they are sick of ad hoc farm programs. Farmers in Ontario need a government with foresight, a government that will sit down and roll up its sleeves and negotiate on their behalf with the federal Liberals. They need a champion, not too little, too late ad hoc relief programs.

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I find it incredible that the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation would pick this day of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to announce the awarding of medals. We don't quarrel with the recipients, but I wonder what Mr Justice Dickson would say about this medal. I'm sure he'd far rather have an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that was mandatory and had teeth than this medal any day of the week.

It's important to hold up this declaration of human rights and to measure the success of this government since it came to power. You know that today in the Toronto Star there was a four-page ad. This ad was placed by the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into the Death of Dudley George. It was sponsored, among others, very proudly by the New Democratic Party caucus here at Queen's Park. The ad demands a full impartial public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of Dudley George.

1420

I want to draw to your attention that several members of the family of Dudley George are here today: Maynard Sam George, Veronica George, Joan Bressette and Debbie Herman. There's been no closure for the family of Dudley George, for his community or for First Nations people or for his friends. There can be no closure until we know the details of what took place in the days leading up to his death, in the hours before he was shot and killed, and what the Premier of this province said that changed the way the OPP dealt with a situation like this, because there's ample evidence that there was involvement by the Premier, by the Attorney General, by the Solicitor General and by the local MPP.

The people of this province are riveted to their television screens and newspapers, hearing about the massive cover-up and the payout of hush money by this government to Mr McLean. Why shouldn't we now turn our attention to the cover-up of the death of Mr George? Because there's no question that this government is trying to cover something up in this case, and it goes right to the top. There has never been a clearer violation, of the human rights of Dudley George, than that this government has involved itself in a direct role in the death of Dudley George and subsequently in the cover-up.

The shooting of Dudley George is just the beginning of a pathetic record of human rights by this government on aboriginal issues. Rather than act as advocates, this government has ignored, harassed and unleashed violent reprisals against aboriginal people with legitimate claims. When an OPSEU protester was beaten in a demonstration we had an inquiry. So why is it that the family Dudley George, sitting here today, his community, his friends, find themselves three years later still carrying this burden, still without closure around his death?

They want to know what happened and the people of Ontario want to know what happened that day, and they have a right to know what happened. They want to know why the Premier's executive assistant reported to a meeting of top bureaucrats that the Premier wanted those Indians out of there, nothing else. They have a right to know; we all have a right to know. We know that documents have gone missing.

I say to you, Speaker, that this government that announces medals and awards today has disbanded the anti-racism and ethnocultural equity branch. In fact, there is no other branch or department any longer in this province doing equity work.

We can't forget the targeting of immigrant groups by the Ontario government, the loss of funding for legal aid for immigrant and refugee people, the eradication of the Employment Equity Act, the total disregard for -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order.

The Speaker: I think I had a point of order from the member for Scarborough East first.

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to draw to your attention a very serious matter that happened this morning and ask for your consideration and judgement on that.

Earlier today, at approximately 10:05, it's my understanding from the security detail in this building that a package was presented at door number 6, where courier packages are received, and was scanned, as is the normal practice. The person who presented that package then went around to the east door. In fact, two people were signed in by the office of Mr Kennedy, the member for York South. They proceeded to have the package couriered up by a Legislative Assembly courier to Mr Kennedy's office.

At that point, someone from Mr Kennedy's office phoned down to the government whip's office and claimed to be calling from the Premier's office. The person asked whether or not it would be appropriate for this other woman who had come in to go into the east lobby to hand out the envelopes, such as the one I'm holding in my hand, to each of the government members. The content of this is basically a series of letters calling on members to vote against the private member's bill that was presented by Mr Martiniuk this morning. In fact, a few minutes after that phone call, the same woman who had presented the package at the courier desk did attend at the whip's office. When told that the east lobby was not an option, the box was then given to a page and all of these letters were put on the desks of the government members.

Mr Speaker, the letters are personalized. They say on their face: "Urgent. Important information regarding today's private member's bill debate." Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to perpetrate a fraud and a misrepresentation on the government members. I believe my rights and the rights of all the members on the government side have been abridged. I think Mr Kennedy should be, in the least, censured for allowing his office to be used as part of this fraud. It is extraordinarily inappropriate and I'm astounded if any member on the other side would defend this practise of someone from another member's office calling down purporting to speak for the Premier of this province.

An occurrence report has been filled out by your security staff. They have confirmed the details that I'm saying to you here this afternoon, Mr Speaker, but I would ask you, because it has highlighted a serious breach of security in this building - I don't fault the security guards one bit. They have proceeded on the best of intentions and they took these people at their word and, when signed in by another honourable member, of course the security detail cannot be held accountable.

The real issue is what happened after that box was received by Mr Kennedy's office. I know you can't ask the leader of the Liberal Party whether he condones this sort of subterfuge and fraud, but I ask you to investigate what action should be taken against the member for York South and his staff for being part of such a gross misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to influence the proceedings in this chamber.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Well - do you want to rise on this point of order?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. First, the government is trying to use its bully tactics to whip things through. We dealt -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members of the government, you must admit that I gave the member for Scarborough East a tremendous amount of leeway in his point of order. He accused the members of fraudulent acts that are criminal offences. Now I hardly think that we need to get out of control if a member of the opposition may make a controversial statement.

Mr Phillips: What was in those packages were urgent letters from our doctors of Ontario because today the Legislature, on virtually no notice, was dealing with a matter that will have profound implications for all the doctors and all the communities in Ontario. If the citizens of the province have no right to have their voices heard here in the Legislature, have no right to notify members of their significant concern about legislation that is before the House, if the government wants to say, "You can't let people know about this," then I'll say to Mr Gilchrist, you're wrong. I say it is important that the citizens of Ontario have a right to let their views be known and not be muzzled.

The Speaker: OK, listen. I'm trying - there are a lot of accusations in your comments and, quite frankly, you offered absolutely no evidence for these accusations. I think probably more appropriate would have been for you to come and see me before bringing it to the floor of the House, but the fact is you did say it's fraud and fraudulent actions. I want to make it clear, they are very, very serious charges and I do not take them lightly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, opposition, please. I will undertake a review, but let me be clear: That was not a point of order and it's not a point of privilege. I will be -

Mr Phillips: It is.

The Speaker: No, it's not a point of privilege. The fact of the matter is, if there was some effort made to deliver packages in here, then that shouldn't happen, according to our routine, but it clearly didn't take place in this place, which would then constitute a point of privilege.

Having said that, I will undertake to review this matter and report back to yourself as well as the three House leaders.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to make one further comment. I was castigated in this House less than two weeks ago for making a statement about what a Conservative member had stated in print. They took great exception because that Conservative member did not happen to be in the House at the time. The member for York South isn't in the House right now. He has absolutely no way to respond to any of these allegations at all, and I think that the member over there owes this House an apology.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): You're on drugs.

Mr Phillips: Who's on drugs, Dave? What are you talking about?

The Speaker: What did he say?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Chief government whip, I ask that you withdraw that comment, please.

Hon Mr Turnbull: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Look, folks, come to order. I'll report back and see what is at the bottom of this. Until that time, let's just wait until that report comes back.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: In light of the fact that this is indeed the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the family of Dudley George is present here today, and I understand that the standing committee on general government has cancelled its meeting which was going to deal with the scheduling of a hearing with regard to the incident at Ipperwash Provincial Park that was to take place today, I ask for unanimous consent to have a minister of the crown stand in this place and make a statement with regard to the government's position vis-à-vis the need for a public inquiry into the events that led to the death of Dudley George.

The Speaker: Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You guys murdered somebody and you wouldn't even stand up.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Bisson: Withdrawn, Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. Yesterday, a letter was sent to the Speaker by Neil Finkelstein, a lawyer at Davies, Ward and Beck -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's not appropriate to the Attorney General if it's regarding -

Ms Castrilli: Why?

The Speaker: I've ruled on it a number of times in the past. The only person it is appropriate to direct your question to is the Premier or his designate for the day.

Ms Castrilli: If I may, the issue is seeking the Attorney General's opinion on a particular legal matter. I would love to know what his view is on all this.

The Speaker: The Attorney General may be asked any questions about legal ramifications with respect to the Attorney General's office. It's not in his realm of responsibility to ask generic and general questions of legal types to the Attorney General, particularly ones that emanate from the Board of Internal Economy. You may place your question, as long as it's properly phrased, to - I believe the Minister of Education is the deputy today.

Ms Castrilli: I find it curious, Speaker, that the top lawyer in the province is not allowed to -

The Speaker: You know what? This is not a debate. You can place your question, as you wish, or we can move on.

Ms Castrilli: Very well. Then my question is to the Acting Premier today. Minister, you will know, as I indicated, that there is a letter that came to the Speaker yesterday, and I've taken the liberty of sending a copy to the Attorney General. I'm assuming that you may have read it as well. I hope you have, because it is a very important letter.

The letter, let me just say, makes some very interesting points. It's brief, to the point, it's concise. I will quote to you what it says. It's absolutely clear on the face of it.

"Ms Thompson's claims as against the Office of the Assembly for damages resulting from other matters, sexual harassment, wrongful dismissal and defamation, are not likely to succeed.

"Allan McLean's proposed claim against the Office of the Assembly for damages and indemnification is of little or no merit.

"In the event that the Office of the Assembly was held responsible for any damages caused to Thompson, there is strong likelihood that the Office of the Assembly would be awarded indemnification against Mr McLean.

"In any event, regardless of the outcome of the litigation" -

The Speaker: Question?

Ms Castrilli: - "it is unlikely that the court would rule that you would pay for the costs of both the winner and the loser in a court case."

You have with you the top lawyer in the province. I would really like to know what you think of this. What does he -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I know of this is that I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I have not been privy to all of the facts that the Board of Internal Economy members would be aware of up to this point in time.

There may be certain legal opinions, various legal opinions, but from what I gather, the Board of Internal Economy members have concluded that it's time to deal with this matter, to bring a resolution to the matter, that the legal costs have been escalating. It's time to bring a resolution to the matter and allow the individuals involved, Ms Thompson and Mr McLean, to get on with their lives. That's my understanding of the matter and apparently that's how the board acted.

Ms Castrilli: This is the second time we've heard about a difference of opinion with respect to lawyers. The fact is, Mr Finkelstein was a representative of one of three law firms that was consulted by the Board of Internal Economy and came out and said, "There's virtually no liability on the assembly." Then a subsequent opinion was obtained which had nothing to do with the merits of the case, as even the lawyers for Morris/Rose/Ledgett indicated. They had not looked at the case. They gave you a general discussion of the law of costs.

Minister, I have a fairly high regard for you, but I wonder if you can honestly say to Ontarians that you believe this assembly should pay for all legal fees, and that Ontarians, therefore, should pay for all legal fees in a sex scandal, plain and simple, between two private parties that has nothing to do with the people of Ontario. Do you really believe that?

Hon David Johnson: In my career over many years, I've been involved with various issues that have involved legal settlements. It's fair to say that in many settlements that I've had to be involved with, whether at the municipal level or at the provincial level, I might have thought that maybe there was a better way to deal with this, but when you're in government, you have to deal with certain realities.

I don't know all the facts of this situation, not being a member of the Board of Internal Economy, but I do know that the people involved are good people. They've looked into this to the best of their ability and they've come to the conclusion that it's time to bring closure to it; that the costs are going up and up; that there may be some risk that if closure hadn't been brought to this particular issue, the costs a year from now or two years from now would be greater, and onward and onward evermore. I know in many cases I've been involved with in the past, that would not have served the taxpayers well.

Ms Castrilli: Minister, let's face it, this is a cover-up. We've tried to ask questions in this House of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Acting Premier, the minister responsible for women's issues. We're not permitted to ask the opinion of the chief lawyer in this province. You tell me what you call it.

What you're telling us is that you want the people of Ontario to believe that nobody over there knew they had a sex scandal on their hands, that nobody over there believed there was an old boys' network that had to be preserved. Is that your position? Because that's what I'm hearing on this side. Finally, you want the people of Ontario to believe that you haven't gone to all lengths possible to cover up, to defend one of your own with hundreds of thousands of their money.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite again refers to the money. We might all have different opinions as to how money is effectively spent or when it isn't effectively spent. I know that in 1994 the Liberal caucus overspent its budget by $300,000 and came to that same Board of Internal Economy asking forgiveness and asking the taxpayers to fork over that extra $300,000 over their budget. I guess some people would say that isn't money well spent either.

Individuals who have been involved know the circumstances and have come to the determination that it's best to cut the losses, to have an agreement on this, to have closure on this, to let all the parties get on with their lives, because if you don't, the expenses go up and up, year after year, and the taxpayers may be on the hook for even more in future years.

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order concerning a point raised earlier by the member for Scarborough East. The member for Scarborough East raised allegations and characterizations of the behaviour of my office that are completely untrue and without foundation. The security service of the Legislature is completely aware of the facts, and concurs. The member for Scarborough East is simply abusing and misusing his privileges in this House to try and distract from the important matters at hand and the things that are happening in this government.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock for a moment. This is very uncomfortable. You've got one member of the House accusing one member of fraud; you've got another member of the House accusing the other member of lying. This is not good territory to be in. Take my word for this.

I appreciate that the member for York South wanted to put his position on the record, and I can understand that. What I will undertake to do is to have a full and frank review of this, talk to the Sergeant at Arms and security staff. I will get to the bottom of it, and at the time I get to the bottom of it, I'll report back to this House. OK?

New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

1440

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): To the Acting Premier on the same matter of Mr McLean: My constituents view this as a relatively straightforward matter and were surprised yesterday to hear Premier Harris say that he thought the settlement was just fine in his eyes and defending it. Here's what they believe and think: A charge of sexual harassment was laid against Mr McLean, a matter between two individuals. They believe a decision has to be made: Who is right and who is wrong here?

We now find, amazingly, that the taxpayers are paying $250,000 to Ms Thompson and are paying all of Mr McLean's fees, in spite of the fact that our own legal advice was strongly of the opinion, "Don't pay it."

I want to ask the Acting Premier, on behalf of the Premier, what possible justification do you have for paying both parties when our legal firm says we have no obligation and when the public expect that this is a matter that should be resolved and handled between the two individuals?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Again I say to the member opposite that I don't have all of the details involved up to this point in time. About a year or a year and a half ago, I was a member of the Board of Internal Economy and did have some of the details at that particular point in time. I'm sure I'm quite out of date by now, but I do recall back then that there were a number of lawsuits involving other members of this House, particularly members who served on the Board of Internal Economy. I think the Speaker was the subject of a lawsuit. I don't know if that's still the case today or not, but certainly there were many more lawsuits involved than just the two individuals.

I don't know how all this comes to bear. I can only say that the Premier has indicated, and I concur, that this is a matter that the members of the Board of Internal Economy felt was best resolved at this point in time. The costs are escalating on both sides.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon David Johnson: There may or may not be risk in terms of the Legislature and members of the House. It's best resolved. Let everybody get on with it and keep the costs where -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: But I am here speaking on behalf of the people of Ontario, Acting Premier. It's very clear to them: a charge was laid by a woman against Mr McLean - and then the defence and costs rising - but the taxpayers are being asked to pay for both of them when the taxpayers and the people of Ontario believe it is a matter between Ms Thompson and Mr McLean. We have our legal opinion which said: "Don't do it. Don't pay it. Don't pay this money. Let the courts make a decision. Let them move and make a decision on who was right and who was wrong here."

I say again to the minister, on behalf of the Premier, what possible justification do we have for paying both sides this money when the legal opinion we got from the lawyers we engaged said, "Don't do it"? What possible justification do you have?

Hon David Johnson: Again, I don't have the full knowledge of all the circumstances of the Board of Internal Economy, so I can't give the member for Scarborough-Agincourt perhaps what he's looking for precisely. But I will say again that if the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is of the opinion that the lawsuits simply involve the two individuals, my understanding is that that is not correct. I'll say once again to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that there were other suits involving other members of the House because of their participation on the Board of Internal Economy, and indeed I believe the Speaker was involved in one of those lawsuits. So you can see that the implications were much broader than the two individuals involved. The members of the Board of Internal Economy have looked at this, investigated this and felt that the best course of action was to try to reach a settlement, get rid of all these lawsuits, which apparently they have, and let everybody get on with their lives. The consequences and the costs apparently are escalating year by year, month by month.

Mr Phillips: I can understand why the Premier would want to get rid of this, but I would just say that for the people of Ontario to be asked, amazingly, to pay both sides in this matter is unprecedented. Your argument is that as the lawyers' bills rise, the taxpayers should dole out. Carried to its logical conclusion, in any future case like this, as the costs go up it's more obvious that you're going to saddle the taxpayers with it.

The people of Ontario have a very clear view of this: It's a matter between Ms Thompson and Mr McLean, involving a substantial amount of money, and Mike Harris has decided to sweep this under the rug. He ordered his four people on that committee to get it done, reach a settlement. He said yesterday he had been fully briefed on this matter and he agreed on it.

Again I say to the minister, what possible explanation does he have to the people of Ontario of why we should be spending this amount of money to settle this case and get it under the rug, when all the advice we got from the lawyers that the legislative committee engaged said, "Don't do it"?

Hon David Johnson: Again, not knowing all the details, I will note for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that apparently a November 10, 1997, edition - about a year ago - of the Hill Times indicated that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent to support MPs - this is in Ottawa - facing lawsuits, including some for wrongful dismissal. I would say what is happening here, as I understand it, is that this Legislature is being sued, with suits involving both parties, so the suits here are much broader than the two individuals. The federal government apparently, in similar instances, has recognized the need to settle, minimize the cost to the taxpayer.

In this particular instance, the members of the Board of Internal Economy, as I understand it, have taken the same course of action. They have said, "We can wait; we can allow this to carry on year after year, let the lawyers' bills mount day after day, month after month, and maybe the taxpayer would be on the hook for more, or we can settle now, cut our costs and get on with life."

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Acting Premier for the day: We saw your government not many months ago say across this province on national television that you were very worried about compensating the Dionne quintuplets because you weren't sure how much it was going to cost, and therefore they almost had to sue you - in fact, they were in the process of suing you - before you finally said, "We should settle this."

Isn't it passing strange that your position a few months ago was that you were going to force the surviving Dionne quintuplets into a very severe situation, and you were in that position until public opinion started beating you up? But here, when it comes to good old Al McLean, a member of the Conservative caucus, your response is, "Oh, we'd better pay this right away." Can you tell me, please, what's the difference, why you changed your position all of a sudden?

Hon David Johnson: I will say there's a little bit of revisionism of history here on a couple of accounts. One is that this matter, which the Board of Internal Economy recently brought to a head, has been before the Board of Internal Economy for years - let alone days or months, it's been there for a couple of years; at least for some considerable period of time.

My understanding, in the case of the Dionne quints, was that the government was in the process of negotiating. The Premier took a visit to Montreal, I believe it was, personally to speak with the quints and to resolve this matter. It was, as I understand it, a very successfully negotiated settlement that all parties are happy with.

I hope that this matter as well will be the same in that it will be a successful negotiation and -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

1450

Mr Hampton: There's a very big difference, Acting Premier, and it's this: You've got a very respected legal counsel who says: "Look, this isn't the responsibility of taxpayers in Ontario at all. This is the responsibility of Al McLean as a private individual." So why are you in such a hurry to spend $600,000 of taxpayers' money to rescue one of your good old boys from a sexual harassment claim when for months you said that the Dionne quintuplets' case had no merit and your government basically told them to get lost? Why are you in such a hurry to spend taxpayers' money now to rescue one of your good old boys when it's clearly his case alone, doesn't involve the Legislative Assembly, doesn't involve the taxpayers of Ontario? Can you tell us, can you explain to us why you're in such a hurry to spend that taxpayers' money now?

Hon David Johnson: I'm a little at a loss to understand the definition of "hurry" from the leader of the third party, since this matter has been before the Board of Internal Economy for over a year - many, many months that the Board of Internal Economy has been looking at this particular matter. Through that period of time the legal costs of both parties have been going up and up. At some point in time, somebody has to make a determination. I know it's tough because I've been there myself; not in this particular instance recently, but in other instances. It's not always popular but you have to make a decision. Will the cost, will the exposure to the taxpayer be greater a year from now, two years from now, if we let it drag on, or can we bring a resolution to this matter, put a lid on these increasing legal costs, these increasing payments to the lawyers, let the parties - Ms Thompson, Mr McLean - get on with their lives and give the taxpayers a break? That's exactly, apparently, the conclusion the Board of Internal Economy came to.

Mr Hampton: I agree, Acting Premier, that what you're trying to do is put a lid on this. You're trying to hush this up, and you're trying to hush it up despite the fact that the only legal counsel who looked at this said very clearly: "There is no liability for the Legislative Assembly. There is no liability for the taxpayers of Ontario." So I want to ask you this. We asked some people to do a little research. We understand that Mr McLean has a very large dairy farm that's worth over half a million dollars. We understand that in terms of all of his assets he's worth more than a million dollars. Why are the taxpayers of Ontario going to rescue Mr McLean from his sexual harassment case when he has the financial means to do that himself right now? Why are the taxpayers of Ontario picking up this liability when Mr McLean can settle it tomorrow out of his own pocket?

Hon David Johnson: Obviously I'm not going to go into anybody's personal financial situation. I guess it's a little curious to me, the definition of "hush up." In view of the circumstances that we've faced in the House this week, there seems to be a lot of discussion on this matter. I will say that the only thing that I think has been hushed up, if you want to use that kind of terminology, is the legal expenses, which have been mounting month after month, year after year; and now finally, after well over a year of the legal expenses mounting and mounting on both sides, it is my understanding that the members of the Board of Internal Economy have reached a resolution to this matter that stops the increase in those costs.

I will also say that if the member for Rainy River thinks this is the absolute end of the matter, the Ontario Human Rights Commission could still be involved. It's my understanding that that's a possibility. It's not within my jurisdiction or anybody's jurisdiction in this House, but that's still a possibility for further exploration.

Mr Hampton: My question is to the Acting Premier. There is a reason why Mr McLean's personal assets come into this: because it's his personal responsibility.

Didn't you read the legal opinion? Part one of the legal opinion: "Ms Thompson's claim as against the Office of the Assembly for damages for sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal and defamation are not likely to succeed. In any event, if they succeeded you could claim over against Mr McLean." Part two: "Allan McLean's proposed claims against the Office of the Assembly for damages and indemnification have little merit." Point three: "Allan McLean's proposed claim for wrongful dismissal against the Legislature has no merit." Point four: "In the event the assembly was ever found responsible, you could claim over against Allan McLean."

The only legal advice the Board of Internal Economy ever got said, "This is Mr McLean's responsibility." We know Mr McLean has the financial wherewithal to handle this financial responsibility and this legal liability. So why are you spending taxpayers' money to hush up a sexual harassment scandal for one of your backbenchers?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to caution the members for Perth and York East to come to order, please. Acting Premier.

Hon David Johnson: Obviously there's no hushing up here. What there is, as I understand it from the Board of Internal Economy, is an attempt to come to grips with and put some completion to this matter.

What concerns me a little bit in the tone of the questioning from the member for Rainy River is: Is he assuming guilt on any one party involved in this issue? Because my understanding is that there has not been any determination of guilt on behalf of any of the members, any legal determination of guilt, in terms of any court cases or anything of that nature.

What the Board of Internal Economy is faced with is the increased possibility of legal costs going up and up, as they have over the past, in an attempt to bring closure to that issue. I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Mr Hampton: The Acting Premier in fact asked the right question, all right? This would have gone to discovery, this would have gone to examination, in a few weeks and the public would have found out there if Mr McLean's defence has any merit and it would have found out the content and the substance of Ms Thompson's claims. Why are you putting the taxpayers on the hook for $600,000 when we would have known within three weeks whether Mr McLean's defence had substance or didn't have substance?

What are you afraid of? What are you trying to hide? What is it that might have been said under oath by either Mr McLean or Ms Thompson that your government is so afraid of?

Hon David Johnson: This government is not afraid of anything concerning this particular circumstance. My understanding is that the Board of Internal Economy is simply trying to make a prudent decision. I faced through my many years, particularly at the municipal level, many circumstances where you can allow a situation to drag through the courts, month after month, year after year, and the expenses go up and up, or sometimes - it's not popular - instead you make a decision to bring closure to the issue, to minimize the cost. You do that in the interests of the taxpayers, because the taxpayers could either be on the hook for a limited amount of costs today or an ever-increasing amount of costs in the future.

This thing could go on for years and years. Anybody associated with the courts would probably feel that's a possibility. My understanding is that the Board of Internal Economy made the most prudent decision they could on behalf of the taxpayers.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Speaker: On three occasions now the minister has stated that the members of the board of control voted in favour of this deal. I think the record ought to clearly show that it was the Conservative members on the board of control that -

The Speaker: Let me tell you, you can't correct another member's record. Technically, the Board of Internal Economy did make the decision. He's not wrong.

Member for Renfrew North.

1500

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): To the Acting Premier, my question is simply this: Why does a third party, in this case the people of Ontario, pay $600,000 worth of damages and legal costs in a dispute between two private individuals about what is essentially a private matter, especially when distinguished legal counsel to the third party, Mr Neil Finkelstein, tells the third party, the Board of Internal Economy, representing the taxpayers, they have no obligation and they ought not to pay?

Hon David Johnson: I can only assume that there's a difference of opinion in that matter. I guess you could ask, why has the federal government paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to support MPs facing lawsuits, including some for wrongful dismissal?

These are, unfortunately, the kinds of decisions that have to be made, and again they are not always popular. But the costs can be resolved today at a certain level, or there's the risk that if they are resolved one, two or three years from now, the costs will be two, three or four times as much as they are today.

Mr Conway: Neil Finkelstein is one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country. He was retained by the Board of Internal Economy. Neil Finkelstein has made it absolutely clear that in his considered and professional opinion, the Board of Internal Economy, representing the taxpayers of Ontario, ought not to pay any costs and any damages in what in Mr Finkelstein's professional opinion is primarily a private matter between two private individuals, Ms Thompson and Mr McLean.

What I want to know is, how is it possible for a Board of Internal Economy dominated by cabinet ministers to make a decision that sets aside the very clear and compelling legal opinion of Mr Neil Finkelstein, ignoring that advice and going forward and paying $600,000 in an action where, according to Mr Finkelstein, the people of Ontario have no interest and have no legal obligation or liability?

Hon David Johnson: Not being there, not being on the Board of Internal Economy when the decision was made, I can only assume that a particular legal advice to the members was one input that they received. I understand there may have been other legal pieces of input. I don't know for sure; I wasn't there. There may be other advice they received surrounding the circumstances of this whole issue.

Again, my understanding is that the legal costs were going up and up month by month, year by year, that it was not apparent that there would be some resolution to this matter in the near future, and that taxpayers may have been on the hook for considerably more costs as the years went by. The Board of Internal Economy made a decision they felt was prudent: to put a cap on the cost, to stop the increase and the exposure to the taxpayers and to settle this matter and let everybody get on with their lives.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. As the Attorney General, you have the very serious responsibility of soliciting and providing legal advice to the government of Ontario when the government and/or you as its chief law officer are named as co-defendants in civil law matters. To assist you, you have a very large number of experienced, salaried lawyers on your crown law office civil staff who examine the facts of such suits, provide advice and accept instructions for action in defence of such matters.

You, Attorney General, and the government of Ontario were from the very beginning co-defendants with the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy and its members in the matters pertaining to the McLean-Thompson matter. Would you please tell this House what advice you were given and what advice or instructions you provided with respect to the suits brought against you and the government by Ms Thompson and Mr McLean?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member knows, quite simply, that legal advice that's given is privileged advice given between clients and their counsel.

What I can tell the member is this: The Legislative Assembly was a defendant in this lawsuit and the Legislative Assembly had attempted to remove itself as a party from this lawsuit. They were not able to do so, and at that stage of the proceedings legal bills on behalf of the Legislative Assembly had reached $200,000. A decision had to be made as to whether it was realistic to continue with this kind of lawsuit where the Legislative Assembly was a party, where they were incurring expenses, where the actual proceedings had not yet started. The Board of Internal Economy, indeed, made a decision that the costs were prohibitive and that the prudent thing to do was to settle the claim and they did.

Mrs Boyd: As you will know, Minister, and as the members of the Board of Internal Economy will know, I asked again and again where you were in this matter, as a co-defendant, where you were as the chief law officer and what advice your minister had given around this matter. You were not at the table; you did not give any advice. Except, of course, we've noticed that you constantly give advice to the Premier and the Acting Premier day after day here.

Your Premier stood here yesterday and tried to tell us that no one in his caucus, except the members of the Board of Internal Economy, knew anything about this or had any authority in this. In fact, you yourself and the government of Ontario were co-defendants in this matter, and it is inconceivable to me that you did not provide advice on this matter.

Minister, I'd like to ask you again: As a co-defendant, were you a party to the settlement? Were you consulted about the settlement? Did you agree to the settlement which you should have had to do as a co-defendant in these matters?

Hon Mr Harnick: The Board of Internal Economy reviewed the issues. They took a look at the costs that had been incurred to that point. They took a look at the fact that the Legislative Assembly had incurred costs of $200,000 before any formal proceedings had even begun in the lawsuit other than a motion that kept the Legislative Assembly in the lawsuit.

One of the things I notice in the tenor of the questions is that there's a feeling here that everybody who asks a question knows what the liability issues were. No one knows what would have happened at the end of this lawsuit and no one in this Legislative Assembly can tell us whether at the end the costs incurred by the Legislative Assembly would ever be recoverable from either of the parties. The Board of Internal Economy made a very prudent decision, and the prudent decision was that before costs escalated any further, they elected to try and settle the case. That was the right thing to do.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does that now mean that the Attorney General is speaking on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, because he wasn't speaking as Attorney -

The Speaker: I understand your point of order. It would appear to be that the answer is yes.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I received a copy of the NDP press release dated today. It claims that the standing committee on public accounts did not meet this morning. It also claims that the Harris government blocked the committee from meeting. Furthermore, it claims that the government members are blocking the review of section 3.01 of the Provincial Auditor's report. Did this happen, and is this true?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Who are you asking?

Mr Maves: The government whip, the House leader.

The Speaker: Hold on. I don't know how this is germane to the House leader. It seems to me like a question that should properly be posed to the chair of the public accounts committee. To me, it's not in order for you to question the House leader about what happened at a committee.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It is point of public interest.

1510

The Speaker: I'm not arguing with respect to the point of public interest. I'm arguing as to what the House leader could possibly give you in the way of information.

Interjection.

The Speaker: If you want to stand and explain, I'll certainly hear your explanation.

Mr Maves: The explanation is, Speaker, that the press release blames the Harris government for -

The Speaker: Whose press release?

Mr Maves: The NDP's press release. I asked the government House leader because it blamed the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having a great deal of difficulty determining the link between government policy and decision-making and an NDP press release about a committee meeting. If you want to help me, House leader, I'll listen.

Mr Maves, you may stand in your place and I'll allow you to put another question to another minister. The supplementary can go elsewhere, but you have to put a question to somebody.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If you think it's in order, we'd be quite happy to have one of our members answer the question.

The Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Maves: I direct my question, based on the same press release, to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could she discuss whether or not the press release is correct when it says the government has paid out $180 million to Andersen Consulting?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am very pleased with the question because I think this particular document is in error in several points.

First of all, the committee was informed that due to the funeral of a personal family friend, the parliamentary assistant was not able to be there today. They were notified of that. They were asked to delay until Monday morning to have the discussion which quite rightly should go to the public accounts committee. Instead, they chose to score cheap political points by putting out a press release that is inaccurate not only in what occurred at committee this morning, but secondly in the claim that someone received $180 million. As they know, that is not true, and I wish they would stop misrepresenting the comments of the auditor.

The Speaker: You're out of order. You must withdraw that.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Maves: Does the minister know if hearings will be continued at a later date on this issue?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls, can you put your question again? I'm not hearing it. Please come to order, opposition. The clock is running. It's your time.

Supplementary.

Mr Maves: Does the minister know if the parliamentary assistant will be attending future public accounts hearings on this issue?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the members across the way were informed, we wished to move it from today to Monday because of the funeral that Mr Carroll had to attend. I really find it quite passing strange that they would wish to make allegations about what happened at the committee today when they know it's going to public accounts. We look forward to the public discussion. As we've said, we'd be quite happy to implement any further recommendations from the auditor on any issue of this kind, and they know that.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to go to the Attorney General, the chief law officer for the crown for the people of Ontario. Minister, in your capacity as the government's top lawyer, can you explain to this House and the taxpayers of Ontario how your cabinet colleagues the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment could go earlier this week to a meeting and appropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money to settle a claim between two individuals, Mr McLean and Ms Thompson, in what primarily was a matter of sexual harassment when one of the country's most distinguished lawyers, Mr Neil Finkelstein, specifically and clearly advised that on a legal basis they, your ministerial colleagues, not do so?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I read briefly Mr Finkelstein's report, and it's very interesting that Mr Finkelstein doesn't comment on the fact that $200,000 in costs had been incurred by the Legislative Assembly before the formal proceedings had apparently even started in the case. Mr Finkelstein did not go on to say whether those costs would in fact be recoverable.

I think it's not unrealistic, when you've incurred $200,000 worth of expenses where you don't know whether those expenses are going to be recoverable and where those expenses will escalate significantly when the lawsuit begins, that you take a look at a particular situation and take steps because it's reasonable to perhaps settle it. I think that's what the Board of Internal Economy did.

Mr Conway: A very helpful answer, because it's very clear the Attorney General is well aware of what's transpired here.

The question remains. Neil Finkelstein advised the Board of Internal Economy, dominated by ministers of the crown - Mr Clement, the Minister of Transportation; Mr Sterling, the Minister of the Environment. They carried the day. They agreed to pay nearly $300,000 in costs and damages that Mr Finkelstein said they ought not to pay. Yes, the board had incurred some of its own costs, and that was something the board was going to have to accept. But Mr Finkelstein made plain in his letter to the board, to those two cabinet colleagues of yours, you are not obligated and you should not pay the legal costs and the alleged damages of these two parties that are engaged in essentially a private action.

What I want to know on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario is, why did your cabinet colleagues ignore the very powerful and compelling advice that Mr Neil Finkelstein provided?

Hon Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, I'm going to refer that to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You've got to remember, he said, "Shut up."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lake Nipigon, that's out of order. Please.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): None of the members of this House is aware of all of the details involved in this particular situation, which is a difficult situation, an unfortunate situation. The members of the Board of Internal Economy are those members who are most privy to all of the details. They have been appointed to look after all matters pertaining to this Legislature, and this particular matter falls under their jurisdiction.

My understanding is that in addition to any legal advice they may be getting, they're getting all sorts of other pieces of information, whatever it is, and they are making the best choice they can on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. Sometimes that choice is to carry on through legal proceedings and incur costs year after year. Sometimes the best choice, as they apparently have made in this particular case, is to make a settlement, put a cap on the expenses, give the taxpayers a break and let everybody get on with their life.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Attorney General: Yesterday we heard the Premier say, "Quite frankly, neither I nor any other member of this caucus, in fact until the settlement, has been given a lot of the facts and the details, including the fact that there's only one legal written opinion...."

1520

It's apparent from your earlier answers that you know quite a lot about this. Mr Attorney General, you were a co-defendant, which means that lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General would have given you a legal opinion about this. The fact that $600,000 of public money, of taxpayers' money, has now gone to hush up Mr McLean's sexual harassment affair means that indeed this is a public issue. The people of Ontario have a right to know. What was the advice of the lawyers who work for Ontario in this matter? Will you tell us what the legal opinion was from within the Ministry of the Attorney General?

Hon Mr Harnick: There is no question, and I say this to the leader of the third party, that the Legislative Assembly was a party to this action, as was the province of Ontario via the Ministry of the Attorney General. They are two separate parties. The issues pertaining to them are very different.

From what I've been provided by the member for Downsview, in terms of looking at a legal opinion, it was quite apparent that $200,000 had been expended in costs by the Legislative Assembly and the lawsuit had not proceeded. It was very reasonable under those circumstances to take a look at the level of costs, to understand that they were going to escalate considerably when a lawsuit was going to take place, and it was certainly a reasonable thing to do to try and get it settled.

Mr Hampton: You're quite willing to stand here and be critical of the expert opinion of Mr Finkelstein, who was quite aware of the case, you're quite willing to quote here another legal opinion where he says, "I give no opinion about the merits of the case because I don't know anything about it," yet you refuse to tell us what the legal opinion of your own lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General was.

I think if your government is going to approve the expenditure of $600,000 of public money to settle a private sexual harassment case involving one of your good old boys, the public of Ontario is entitled to know the legal opinion of the lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: The Ministry of the Attorney General acted on behalf of the province of Ontario. Their involvement was very distinct from the involvement of the lawyer acting for the Legislative Assembly. The issues pertaining to those two different defendants were very different. The question I'm being asked is completely ridiculous and inappropriate, and unconnected to the decisions that were made by the Board of Internal Economy.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is to the Minister of Labour. It is about volunteer firemen. Recently in my riding I attended a ceremony where the volunteer firemen were celebrated in the township in which they are volunteers. Throughout my riding, most of the firefighting is done by volunteers, as is the case throughout most of Ontario.

Last week you introduced the Emergency Volunteers Protection Act and I understand that's intended to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. I'm being asked by volunteer firemen in my riding when we might expect this legislation to move ahead. Could you provide the House with a report?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for the question. Indeed, volunteer firefighters are an important part of emergency services around the province of Ontario, including 60 volunteer firefighters in the service of the town of Whitby, which I'm proud to represent in this place. I also thank my colleague Ted Arnott, the MPP for Wellington, for taking the lead in bringing this initiative before the House.

This bill, if passed, would address concerns raised by municipalities and volunteer emergency workers around Ontario. It would ensure that volunteers would not be penalized for their selfless work in coming to the aid of their neighbours in emergency circumstances.

The Emergency Volunteers Protection Act would allow municipalities to select the amount of coverage they desire for volunteer firefighters and for volunteer ambulance workers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It places an obligation on the full-time or part-time employer to continue employment benefits, co-operate in return to work and offer re-employment. It is important emergency work -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Grimmett: Minister, it certainly is comforting to the firefighters in my riding to hear that there is legislation coming along. I wonder if you can advise the House whether we can expect this legislation to be in place before Christmas?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm hopeful that with the co-operation of the members opposite the Emergency Volunteers Protection Act will be passed before the House rises at the end of this session. It certainly has the support of volunteer firefighters around the province. They're important in all of our communities. I was pleased to receive a letter this week from Chief Allen, the president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, in which he expressed his support for this legislation and the hope that we would deal with it expeditiously. I'm looking forward to that being accomplished, in response to the member's question, hopefully within the next week.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question to the Attorney General. I listened carefully to your last response to the leader of the third party, and I think a reasonable person would conclude, from your response to Mr Hampton, the following: that you, as Attorney General, having looked at all the factors in the McLean-Thompson case, concluded that it would not have been unreasonable to settle as the Board of Internal Economy did earlier this week. Is that the conclusion to which you came and is that the advice that you, as the Attorney General for Ontario, offered to your colleagues in government?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will refer that to the Acting Premier.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I can only indicate that apparently was the conclusion of the Board of Internal Economy, that a settlement should be reached in this particular manner, and presumably the Board of Internal Economy - I don't know for sure; I wasn't there; you weren't there - had various pieces of advice and information. They acted in the best interests, apparently, of the taxpayers of the province. They had a choice, I guess, to accept whatever advice and perhaps keep this thing going further at the risk of more and more cost to the taxpayers. They had the choice to make a decision to bring an end to this, get all the lawsuits off the table and minimize the risk to the taxpayers. I gather they chose the latter choice.

Mr Conway: There's no doubt what the cabinet-dominated Board of Internal Economy did this week. The Minister of Transportation, your colleague Mr Clement, and the Minister of the Environment, Mr Sterling, forced through the Board of Internal Economy, on division, a settlement that will cost the taxpayers in excess of half a million dollars, including $380,000 worth of legal costs and damages for the two private parties in essentially a sexual harassment case. They did that against the express advice of one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, who advised the Board of Internal Economy not to do so.

I wasn't at the meeting and you weren't, but Neil Finkelstein was there with this opinion. I want to know, in the name of the taxpayers who have now paid out or will pay out $380,000 worth of damages and legal fees to two private parties over the express advice of their lawyer, Neil Finkelstein, what were the other factors at play in the minds of your cabinet colleagues that were of sufficient power and force to set aside the legal advice that the Board of Internal Economy had and that have now cost the taxpayers $380,000 that their lawyer said they shouldn't be paying?

Hon David Johnson: I'm really unable to indicate to the member for Renfrew North what all the information was they had at that point in time. As you have noted, I wasn't there, you weren't there, and we don't know. That's the nature of the Board of Internal Economy. These are members appointed to look after certain responsibilities.

I do know that the federal government, from all accounts, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support MPs in lawsuits involving wrongful dismissal, for example, so they have had to make these kinds of decisions as well. This same Board of Internal Economy bailed out the Liberal caucus, some $300,000, in 1994 when the Liberal caucus overspent its budget. These are the kinds of decisions the Board of Internal Economy has to make. They're not always easy decisions. The Board of Internal Economy, as I understand it, took everything into account and attempted to make the best decision on behalf of the taxpayers.

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

1530

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Attorney General: You were a co-defendant in this sexual harassment claim. That means that when your members on the Board of Internal Economy tried to organize an in-camera settlement of this to quiet it all down - $600,000 of taxpayers' money to make it go away - as co-defendant you would have received the details of that settlement and you would have received legal advice from lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

What was the legal advice of lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General regarding the Al McLean settlement? Give us the details of that advice - I think, since public money is at stake, the public has a right to know - and did you share that advice with the Premier and other members of the cabinet?

Hon Mr Harnick: This was purely a matter in which the Legislative Assembly assumed control of dealing with the defence of this matter. The Board of Internal Economy provided the instructions to their counsel. The lawsuit, in terms of any formal proceedings, had not started and discussions were at the level of dealing strictly with the Legislative Assembly, the Board of Internal Economy and the various parties.

Mr Hampton: The Ministry of the Attorney General, as co-defendant, would have received the details of this settlement. In fact, so that this will settle all of the possible lawsuits that come out of this, you frankly would have had to have agreed with the settlement; otherwise not all of the lawsuits will be settled.

You would have received legal advice from lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General. What is the legal advice of lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to the potential liability of the AG's office, of the government of Ontario? Since public funds are being expended here to rescue your good buddy Al McLean, the public has a right to know. What is the legal advice, what legal advice has been received from lawyers, and did you share that advice with the Premier and other members of your cabinet?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, the premise of that question is totally wrong. The parties that were involved in discussions of settlement were those that included the Legislative Assembly and other parties to the action. The Ministry of the Attorney General was not involved in those discussions. The Ministry of the Attorney General was a party in name. I think if the member asks counsel why the Ministry of the Attorney General was there, they were there because they were concerned about making sure all the necessary parties who had to be there were there, and any discussions that took place involved the Board of Internal Economy and the plaintiff and the defendant McLean.

NIAGARA PENINSULA HIGHWAYS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation, and in the interests of time I'll combine both my question and my supplementary.

As the minister is aware, the Niagara Peninsula has experienced substantial increases in traffic, both commercial and tourist. In fact, to adjust to that, the Peace Bridge is planning a $200-million twinning project to be completed by 2002. I know communities in south Niagara like Port Colborne, Wainfleet and even Dunnville in Haldimand-Norfolk experience economic challenges because they don't have direct access to a major highway thoroughfare.

In a speech in this House in 1996, I called on the government to move towards a mid-Peninsula corridor through the Niagara Peninsula which would bring benefits to the Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Fort Erie and Dunnville areas. What is the minister's stance on the mid-Peninsula corridor and improving highway links in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to stand in my place and answer this question and inform the honourable member in this House that in fact as of today the Ministry of Transportation is releasing the transportation studies on the mid-Peninsula corridor and the Niagara gateway. Every day in this province of Ontario over $2.7 billion-worth of goods are transported on our highways. This means jobs. This means opportunity for Ontarians. But the growth is there too. In fact, if we do nothing, that growth is going to double on the current road stock, particularly on the QEW, which is one of our major highways.

What we're suggesting through our study is that not only do we have to expand the QEW, but perhaps there has to be another mid-peninsula corridor. I am looking forward to working with the private sector, with other government agencies and with the representatives of the good Niagara region to make sure we have more tourism, more transportation opportunities and more growth in that region. I'm looking forward to it.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 37(a) to serve notice of my dissatisfaction with the answers given me this afternoon by the Acting Premier, the Minister of Education, on the McLean-Thompson matter and to seek an early opportunity to discuss this matter after adjournment.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the papers and it will be done.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would also like to express dissatisfaction with the answers of the Attorney General, and I will be filing the appropriate papers.

The Speaker: So be it.

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I just tried to find Mr Gilchrist to ask him to attend the House, because I've received the information he was seeking earlier in question period.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think he's watching on TV outside.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection: Here he is.

The Speaker: To the member for Scarborough East and the member for York South, who made statements today with respect to this issue that was beforehand, I will continue to investigate this matter if Mr Gilchrist can provide me any evidence to substantiate the charges you make. According to our security staff, they don't substantiate your arguments.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I would like to get the specific security officer.

The Speaker: No. I appreciate what you can do. Please take your seat. All I can do is explain to you that the report I've received from our security office does not implicate Mr Kennedy at all. It doesn't implicate Mr Kennedy or Ms Boyd, who was also part of the -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, would you please come to order. I have the floor when I'm speaking. If you want to respond, I'll be happy to listen to you.

It does not implicate Mr Kennedy nor Ms Boyd, who was also receiving envelopes for her caucus at the time. There seems to be a mix-up, but it was internal to the Conservative caucus.

I will be happy to discuss this at a future date. If you want to respond at this time, we will, but if you would like to meet in private to discuss this further rather than in this public forum, and I would suggest it would be better, then I will do that.

Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will certainly take you up on your offer. I was present at the desk where confirmation was given to me of all of the facts I gave to you earlier. Furthermore, the issue, as I say, was the representation, the phone call, to the whip's office. That is incontrovertible. The statement stands from the staff member.

I will meet with you -

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, I just asked you not to bring it forward, but if you want to continue to work on the details, I'll give them to you. The person who made this phone call was not an employee of Mr Kennedy nor an employee of Ms Boyd. This was a private citizen who was in there attempting to make deliveries. It had nothing to do with the opposition members' offices.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, will you stop talking. If you want to know how they got signed in, they phoned Mr Kennedy's office and phoned Ms Boyd's office to ask to sign them in so they could deliver them to their caucuses. They may have done something untoward, but it was not the fault of Mr Kennedy nor Ms Boyd.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions so that I might move a motion with regard to Bill 88.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1540

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 88

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that Bill 88, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure, be discharged from the committee of the whole House and be ordered referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Sterling moves that Bill 88, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure, be discharged from the committee of the whole House and be ordered referred to the standing committee on social development, according to the crib notes I've received.

Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a 507-signature petition, 39 pages, to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas SO₂ emissions from mining and smelting operations remain a serious threat to the health, environment and property of Sudbury citizens;

"Whereas there continues to be ongoing intolerable peaks in levels of SO₂ emissions from mining and smelting operations;

"Whereas the threat of fugitive emissions remains constant to the Sudbury region;

"Whereas existing government regulations and thresholds for SO₂ emissions may be in need of immediate reassessment;

"Whereas the elimination of 26 regional Ministry of the Environment jobs by the Harris government has resulted in lowered monitoring effectiveness;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand that the Mike Harris government aid the citizens of this community in having these emissions monitored closely and reduced significantly."

This petition is from the Clean Air Committee of Sudbury, and I affix my signature to it as I am in complete agreement.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"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."

There are thousands of signatures here and I am proud to affix my signature.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition which I will summarize in accordance with the standing orders.

The 18 people from my riding who have signed this petition have indicated a concern about impaired boating and they urge the Legislature to pass Bill 59, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act. I file that today.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas schools are the focus of a community and closure of schools weakens the community and initiates a cycle of decay;

"Whereas the new provincial funding formula is irrational, unworkable and has failed to legitimately reflect capacity or space requirements;

"Whereas the funding formula threatens childcare facilities, special programs and ignores community use or need;

"Whereas the funding formula pits school against school and forces the sale of educational facilities;

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

"Withdraw the funding formula in its present form and commit to a rational process that will benefit children and communities;

"Measure and value community use of schools within a process acceptable to all stakeholders;

"Facilitate partnership of local boards with their communities to negotiate the most effective use of schools on a cost-recovery basis, emphasizing community needs;

"Increase funding to realistically meet the goal of higher quality education."

I have affixed my signature to this petition as well.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): "Whereas Ontarians with disabilities face many barriers when they seek to participate in all aspects of Ontario life; and

"Whereas there is an urgent and pressing need for a new, strong and effective law to achieve a barrier-free Ontario for people with disabilities; and

"Whereas Premier Harris promised in writing during the 1995 election to work together with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee to develop this new law, to be called the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and to pass it in his first term; and

"Whereas the Ontario Legislature unanimously passed a resolution on October 29, 1998, calling on the government to make sure that this law is strong and effective, and embodies the 11 principles set out in the resolution, to make sure that the law is strong and effective, not weak and window dressing,

"Therefore, the undersigned

"1. Call on the Ontario government to enact a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act in this term, before calling an election, which fully complies with unanimous resolutions of the Ontario Legislature passed on October 29, 1998.

"(2) Call on Premier Harris to immediately meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, instead of continuing to refuse to meet with them, since he promised during the last election to work together with this broad-based disability coalition to develop this law.

"(3) Call on Premier Harris to immediately direct his citizenship minister, Isabel Bassett, to stop making the false claim that the Ontario Legislature's October 29, 1998, resolution calls for job quotas, since it includes nothing of the sort."

It's signed by many people from the disability community and was sent to me by Sandy Russill from the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. I'm in complete agreement and will affix my signature to this.

ADOPTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to present a petition today, and it's a very appropriate day because it's on Bill 88, presented in the name of Ms Churley, the member for Riverdale, who I'm sure you're very familiar with. This is the letter I've received in support of it, but I've a number of petitions here also in support of the adoption issue. I'll just read the interesting introduction.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario...."

I have read this petition before. I am in support of it, as I supported Bill 88 today, and am pleased to present this petition.

ELECTION CALL

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the current provincial government under Mike Harris has destroyed labour relations, gutted the WCB, caused rampant dependence on gambling, has contributed to mass homelessness and poverty while eroding our health care, educational and municipal institutions, we, the people of Chatham-Kent, are demanding that an election be called now, before the province is destroyed, morally, ethically and financially."

It's signed by a number of residents from Merlin, Blenheim, Chatham and Grande Pointe. I affix my name to it.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a couple of hundred petitions here and they read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a school such as Montrose Junior Public School has been a valid and meaningful part of our community for 35 years;

"Whereas a school such as Delta Senior Alternative School provides unique programming for the specialized needs of students using has made Montrose its home for over 10 years;

"Whereas a properly funded quality education system is critical to the well-being of the children of this province and to the future of the province itself;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly provide sufficient school funding for the education of our children and the future of our province."

I sign this petition.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition I'd like to present. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent education materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by the Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of, and appreciation for, Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I have hundreds of signatures here. I support this petition and I affix my signature.

1550

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have just received this petition from several people. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has decided taxpayers of Ontario should pay the legal fees of his own member in a government sex scandal; and

"Whereas the Legislature's own lawyers have advised against this poorly considered action; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, think the Mike Harris government is trying to hush up this sex scandal by settling it quickly behind closed doors;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Harris government to justify this gross misuse of taxpayers' dollars or to step down as government."

Of course, I affix my signature to this petition.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition signed by almost 100 members of Branch 15, Royal Canadian Legion, many of whom are members of that group in Brampton. It says:

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent education materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by the Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I agree with this and I concur.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have petitions in support of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines that read 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. I'm in complete agreement.

ADOPTION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Madam Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows, and I commend it to your interest:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas 20% of persons in Ontario are directly or indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal information available to other citizens;

"Whereas the adopted person's right to his/her birth identity is rooted in a basic and fundamental human need;

"Whereas most birth parents did not ask for lifelong confidentiality; it was imposed on them involuntarily;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents and other birth relatives;

"Whereas research in other countries has shown that unqualified access to information in adoption satisfies the overwhelming majority of the parties involved;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons, and unrestricted access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives, when the adopted person reaches age 18.

"Permit unrestricted access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children, emancipated minor adoptees and individuals with legal guardianship for an adopted person in special circumstances;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file notice stating their wish for no contact;

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling;

"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification of and contact with birth relatives;

"Recognize open adoptions in the legislation."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 82, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à affermir la protection de l'environnement et les mesures d'exécution à cet égard.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Who's up? The member for Fort York? Go ahead.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to have this opportunity to speak to this bill, a bill that you covered very adequately, I would say, last week.

I want to begin by saying that we are pleased to have this bill in front of us. The member for Northumberland last week -

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're whacking the environmentalists.

Mr Marchese: They did whack the environmentalists before, and we think it will continue.

The member for Northumberland was very critical of the fact that we were critical of what this government has done, not necessarily with this particular bill but with a whole lot of other criticisms that you, Speaker, have made and that I will be addressing again today.

With respect to Bill 82, we are happy that it is before us. We know the member for Algoma had introduced this as a private member's bill, because we were going to do much of this when we were in government. It was a continuation of what we had begun. I'm pleased that this government has taken this private member's bill, introduced by the member for Algoma, and made it theirs, albeit a couple of years later. Why it would take two or three years to introduce a bill that was essentially duplicated in every way, we don't know.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Point of order, Madam Speaker: I think it's going to take a little longer, because we don't appear to have a quorum in the House.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: The member for London Centre was just reminding the Tory caucus members not to leave this chamber, because she'll call them back. So please stick around. We have a few things to say and you can have your two-minute rebuttal when we do this. Don't go away; it's a fun place from time to time.

On the issues I was addressing earlier, it took them a couple of years to introduce a bill that the member for Algoma had introduced as a private member's bill, but we're happy it came. It's always better late than never. The question we ask is, why does it take so many years, when the environmentalists out there are crying foul against abuses of the environment which affect us as human beings?

Often we speak of the abuses of the environment as if somehow the environment is a neutral body out there that doesn't have feelings. The point is, of course, the environment is very much connected to us. We populate this place, so when the environment gets affected, we are all affected as well. We've got a problem in terms of how we deal with these abuses. The fact that it took years to introduce a bill that we support is a problem. We have no problem with the fact that in relation to prosecution we have increases of fines and use of jail terms to crack down on polluters. We think that's a good thing. Why would it take a couple of years to introduce something we should have had in place, to deal with abuses?

1600

"Provides for restitution and forfeiture of property upon conviction." "Stops additional offences using same equipment." "Provides for forfeiture for collection of unpaid fines." Good stuff. "Investigation and inspection: Provides for the securing of scenes to protect evidence." "Allows for the use of flashing red lights on MOE investigation vehicles," which is fine. "Allows for seizure of licence plates and permits of polluters," and on and on.

These are things, of course, that we support. What the New Democrats have said in relation to all of this is that we are lacking the personnel power to be able to deal with prosecution, investigation, inspection and compliance. The most egregious of all, Speaker, and you know this because you've raised this yourself in the House, is that they have laid off 750 staff and cut $150 million from the ministry budget since 1995. That is egregious - it's a whole lot of human beings. I'm sorry, Minister for the Environment, I can't hear you very well.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Laid off 800; you laid off more than we did over there.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): You laid off 800.

Mr Marchese: Oh, we laid off 800.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please.

Mr Marchese: Let it be known for the record that this government is spending more and more money than ever before, contrary to the other notion that they are doing more with less. We often have contradictory evidence given in this place. On the one hand, they say they do more with less, on the other hand, they say they're doing less with more. It's difficult to say.

What the Minister of the Environment is saying is that they haven't laid off anybody. What we're saying is that 750 of their staff have been laid off since 1995, once these fine people took rein, took control of this place. They have done this and we are worried about what that implies. How can you involve yourself on matters of monitoring the environment, monitoring the abusers, if you don't have the staff any longer to monitor those abuses? How do you enforce -

Hon Mr Sterling: Fifteen hundred.

Mr Marchese: Oh, I see, the Minister is crowing there that he's still got a couple of staff, or plenty of staff, to still do the job. Happy to hear you say that, Minister. But a whole lot of other people have complained against you, personally as a minister, and against your government for a whole lot of abuses against the environment.

Hon Mr Sterling: All your lefty friends. I expect that.

Mr Marchese: Lefty friends of mine? Okay. We're talking about the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation; we're talking about the Canadian Environmental Law Association; we're talking about the Commission for Environmental Co-operation. The Environmental Commissioner, who assuming is a watchdog -

Hon Mr Sterling: Your appointee.

Mr Marchese: Our appointee.

The Acting Speaker: Minister of the Environment, you're not even in your seat.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, I enjoy that. I don't mind the exchange. No, you continue, Minister of the Environment. And, Jim, nice to see you here. It's good for the former Minister of Health to hang around. Is the Minister of Transportation still here?

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If we're talking about people who are and aren't here, there are not enough people here to create a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if there's a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Getting back to the abuses - and I'm happy you're here, Minister of the Environment. It's good to have this dialogue between you and me. I want to know the kinds of criticisms that have been levied against him and I want him to hear it and respond. He'll have his two minutes for sure, and maybe 20 minutes; I'm not sure. You need to respond to these. The Ministry of the Environment has sustained cuts of 45% to its operating budget.

Hon Mr Sterling: No, you can't say that.

Mr Marchese: You deny that, Minister? It's good. That's why you're here, so you can stand up and say, "No, that's not true." Maybe it's 43%, give or take a percent. OK, that's fine.

We've had 81% cuts to the capital budget. That's a big deal. Yes? No? Are you nodding? No, no response.

I know that I said 750 staff but I may have been wrong, because I have in front of me another figure which says 880 staff fired. But the Minister of the Environment assures me that he's got enough people there to do the job.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing assures me of the same. Well, people in the environment are not so assured of the same. When you fire people - and you have the intention of firing yet another 13,000 people. A whole lot of people from the Ministry of the Environment will continue to be laid off, fired completely, positions gone.

The Minister of the Environment is cheerfully talking about these great measures that he's introducing, but he'll have no one to do the job. He will have a skeletal office with great policies and procedures and laws, and no one to enforce them. But he goes merrily on, cheerfully undeterred by the task. When we talk about whether the ministry has been stripped of its enforcement, monitoring and inspection staff and resources to do the enforcement of this bill, he smiles cheerfully. I'm assuming, by the cheer: "Everything is OK, Marchese. Not to worry."

People are worried. I'm worried. We're talking about the effects and the abuses and the degradation of the environment having serious consequences on my health. I don't know if he cares about his own health, but I care about mine. I know he drinks expensive mineral water and expensive spring water, probably Evian, San Pellegrino type of water -

Mr Caplan: Perrier.

Mr Marchese: Perrier mineral, but spring water is probably better. He's got the bucks to drink the good water. In that respect he says: "I'm OK. I'm beyond it."

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I drink good well water from eastern Ontario. I don't drink Evian. I can't afford that kind of thing.

The Acting Speaker: Minister, that was not a point of privilege, but I'm sure we're all happy to hear that.

Mr Marchese: Speaker, I am convinced he drinks expensive spring water, because it's much better water by and large. It gets purified through that process. But it costs a whole lot of money. A whole lot of poor people can't afford that kind of water, but as a minister of the crown you've got a few extra bucks to buy the good water.

Mr Caplan: He got a tax cut too.

Mr Marchese: He's doing OK.

Look at the other cuts that worry me about what's happening to our environment: This fellow - no, not he, but this government has eliminated the intervener funding. I happen to believe that it's a good thing.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Mr Wilson, the Minister of Energy, claps when I say they got rid of intervener funding.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Marchese: The Minister of Energy is quite happy and proud. When I said that they got rid of intervener funding he clapped as a way of suggesting - I'm assuming by the clapping - that he's quite happy with that.

1610

Let me tell you why I'm unhappy with that, Minister of Energy. Intervener funding is an important part of the citizenry being able to protest something that they feel will, in a wilful manner, affect our environment. It permits citizens who have a stake and an interest in our environment to do so, because it costs money to intervene in legal matters that affect the environment.

The Minister of Energy claps and says, "Yeah, we got rid of intervener funding." Why do you think he claps? Because this is a benefit to those he supports, those who want to stray from processes that would protect our environment. He loves for us to build so he can claim that construction is happening all over the province. He's very happy to be able to diminish the environmental assessment process that would have given us those better protections and would allow us, through intervener funding, one more voice from the general public to be able to protect us all, to protect the public in general.

It is now more expensive under these Tories to acquire files under freedom of information. Everything that people need in this province now is costing a whole lot more essentially because of that $6-billion income tax cut that they have given, forcing the rest of us, forcing the little person in Ontario, to pay more for everything. They smile gleefully because they know that as long as the 20% of the Canadian population that is doing well economically is doing well, the Tories are fine by those politics and that kind of ideology. It's not fine by us, not fine by me.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Nothing is fine by you.

Mr Marchese: It is fine. I'm telling you, member for Etobicoke-Humber, that this is OK, this bill is fine, except that the money that should be there to enforce, monitor and inspect is not there. The bill is fine. I agreed with you in that regard, but it's got to follow that you need corresponding dollars to make sure the people are there to manage the job that this bill will require them to do.

The auditor makes the point that there are 120 air quality standards that need to be upgraded. The response of this government is no response whatsoever. This government has rewritten the Planning Act that would facilitate urban sprawl, not contain it. This government is happy that it permits the developers build and build in an unbridled way. If the environment happens to be affected by it, that's OK because it's for a good cause; it's going to create jobs.

But if you affect the environment, you're affecting my health; you're affecting the health of each and every Ontarian. You have reduced the subsidies to public transportation, thus relying more and more on the use of the car and the pollutants that those things bring to our environment and the damage it does to my health and the health of our children, the health of all of our people in this province.

The abuses against this government are many. This is the same government that has permitted self-regulation of our industries when it comes to issues of the environment. How could any government with a conscience do that, permit industries to self-regulate? That is the role of government. We can't leave that job to the industry to do. It is your job as a government to regulate the industry, because by it you are protecting us, the general population. When you abandon your role to regulate, you abandon us all. What you've essentially said to industry and to those companies is, "You can do what you want; we trust you not to pollute our environment," when we know it isn't true, when we know the abuses have been detailed by the people I mentioned: the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Environmental Commissioner for Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association, the David Suzuki Foundation and more. These are just a few. It isn't just an isolated number of experts in the field. There are many that have attacked this minister and this government with respect to what it is not doing to the environment, and specifically on what it's doing against the environment.

It seems to me that when we talk about intervener funding and you get rid of that watchdog kind of role that individual citizens would play, who else do you leave? Mercifully, we've got the Environmental Commissioner still here, but we suspect you're not listening to her. You're not listening to that individual because you say New Democrats appointed her, as if to suggest that individual on her own does not have the knowledge or the capability in that office to monitor what you people are doing or what the abusers of our environment are doing.

Her job is specifically designed to protect me, to protect you, the watcher, to protect Tories, Liberals and New Democrats as well. Her job is to protect all of Ontario, not a specific sector of the population. So to dismiss her and to dismiss all these other groups that I've mentioned as left-leaning people is a serious problem for this government and a serious problem for the population, because you ought to worry.

While we praise the fact that two and a half, three years later this government has picked up on the New Democrat from Algoma's private member's bill, we say to you that the abuses against the environment by your government are many, and in order for this bill to have any effect in terms of monitoring, enforcement and inspection, you need to put in money. Otherwise, this bill is useless.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Fort York. I recognize that many of his comments were perhaps not directly on the topic of the discussion this afternoon, Bill 82, but more on the politics of some of the language in the legislation. But I did hear some support in his comments and I thank the member for that. I'm pleased to say that I will be speaking on this this afternoon, so stay tuned.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Fort York for his remarks here today. He spoke about a number of groups and organizations which have consistently criticized this government for its lack of attention to the environment, for its lack of commitment to environmental protection for Ontarians.

One of the individuals he did not mention, and I know he would have if he had been given more time, was our own Provincial Auditor. In his 1996 report the auditor criticized the Ministry of the Environment, in fact this Minister of the Environment, because 226 air standards that were identified as needing to be updated as early as 1992 had not been updated. But guess what?

Mr Marchese: I mentioned it.

Mr Caplan: You mentioned that? I'm sorry, I apologize. The member for Fort York mentioned it. But in 1998, two years later, six years after it was originally highlighted to the Ministry of the Environment, guess what? Nothing had happened, not one single air quality standard had yet been updated. I think that really shows the lack of commitment that this government and this minister have to the environment and the protection of the environment.

In fact, you've seen exactly the opposite. They've reduced the amount of staff by 880 positions; 36% of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment have been reduced; they've cut the budget for the Ministry of the Environment 42%. This has been one of the hardest-hit ministries, and it doesn't matter, the tough language contained in Bill 82, if you don't have the people to enforce the standards. If you don't have the staff in the enforcement branch to go out there and to check, it doesn't matter. The commitment is what's lacking in this government, even though this bill does have some good language in it.

1620

Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on my colleague from Fort York's speech. He's always so passionate about whatever it is that he speaks about and knows very well the passion of the people who form the many groups that seek to safeguard our environment, so he is indeed a good spokesperson for the kind of concerns that those groups express.

It is interesting to hear the yips and complaints from the government backbench when my colleague from Fort York is likely to have great flows of eloquence about these issues. I think they don't understand how very seriously he takes his work and how seriously he takes his job of bringing forward the concerns in a way that will attract the attention and perhaps even crack through some of the soundproofing that seems to be around the government members.

His concerns are very real concerns around whether this bill, which we of course think is important since it was first brought forward by one of our members, is even going to be meaningful when there is virtually no one available in the Ministry of the Environment to enforce this particular provision. He is very right to try to express, with his eloquence and with his passion, the concerns that people in the province have as to whether this is mere window dressing, merely an effort on the part of the Minister of the Environment and the government to try to give an impression that there is real concern in the government on the environment.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I listened to as much of the remarks of the member for Fort York as I could. Unfortunately, I was called away for a period of time during his remarks and I wasn't able to catch all that he had to offer here this afternoon, but what I did hear was characteristically well expressed and quite cogent in its content. But I'm encouraged to hear that the member for Durham East will be addressing the House later this afternoon on the same subject. I know that whatever I missed from the member for Fort York will be more than compensated by the remarks yet to come from the member for Durham East, and I certainly look forward to his remarks that are coming up soon.

I thank the member for Fort York for his contribution to the debate this afternoon on this very significant bill, which makes some very substantial amendments and improvements to the environmental statute law here in this province. I thank the member for his contribution to the debate and I look forward to the further remarks later this afternoon, particularly from the member for Durham East.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: As always, I thank my friends and foes for their remarks: London Centre and Oriole and York East and Durham East.

The member for Oriole did mention some of the things I had detailed and said that the auditor had mentioned there were 120 air quality standards that needed to be upgraded and this government has not done anything, including, as was mentioned 40% of air quality stations - no, I think he mentioned other things.

On two of the statements made by the member for Durham East and York East: The member for Durham East said that my comments were more political than anything else. Perhaps he can draw attention in his remarks as to what I said that might have been more political than factual. I pointed out to him that 880 staff have been laid off, fired, let go. That I think is factual, not political. The fact that the ministry has lost 45% of its operating budget is factual, not political; 81% of its capital budget gone, no intervener funding. It costs more to get information from the freedom of information act. We've had, since 1991, 700 water stations, monitoring stations that now have diminished down to 200.

I merely state to you all of the factual information that we have in our hands. Maybe that's political to the other side, but what I'm telling them is that unless we have the people to make this bill effective, this bill will not be any good to anybody.

If the member for Durham East, as the member for York East said, has more to say on this matter, I look forward to it. I don't think it can compensate for what I said, but maybe it can. I look forward to his comments.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr O'Toole: It's a pleasure to follow the member for Fort York, and I thank the member for York East for his compliments before my remarks.

My riding of Durham East is probably one of the most finest and most pristine areas in this wonderful province. It's my duty as a member of this Legislature to do everything to respect the environment. I have to commend the minister for bringing us Bill 82, which talks about the commitment to the environment and the ways to set tougher standards.

My remarks will sometimes be a little varied from the normal script, because in all capacity here it's my job to represent the views of my constituents of Durham East. In fact, all of Durham is really, arguably, my job. The member for Durham West may disagree with that.

An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement: I want to follow up on some of what my colleague the member for Northumberland said the other night in his comments. I will be making reference throughout my comments about the member for Northumberland, who is the parliamentary assistant to the minister and has carried the charge on many long hours of public hearings and in many cases on examining needless regulations that were put in place that weren't really functioning to support the environment so much as to support a bureaucracy, if you will. I know the goal is one which my constituents want me to pursue, because it is an issue that is close to the hearts of all Ontarians.

The importance of environmental protection cuts across all divisions. We all need clean air, clean water and clean land as the basis for a healthy and thriving community and indeed a healthy and thriving province. For today, tomorrow and future generations we must all pay closer attention to the environment. Anything that will improve our ability to protect the environment is worthy of all-party support.

I have taken some time to look at the remarks on the long and extended discussions on Bill 82 here in the House and I see that all parties have spent considerable time, and in many cases they've started or prefaced their comments - I could quote them and probably will - with support of this particular legislation. That being said, I recognize that they'll all make the argument that there isn't enough money. We tried to at least put in place a framework to make things work, and all of our solutions involve the prudent use of taxpayers' resources.

As everyone knows, An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement proposes several new enhanced powers for the courts and for the Ministry of the Environment itself. With the act, we are not looking for increased powers per se but for increased powers of environmental protection, and that will be fair to those who meet the present environmental laws and tough on those who break those laws.

With our proposals in place, breaking environmental laws will cease to be an attractive choice for those who have not conformed. Those who have always complied with the requirements of the environmental legislation will obviously continue to do so, with the full support of the government, but with the knowledge that the laws will be applied equally across this wonderful province.

There's one point that the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Norm Sterling, has asked me today to emphasize: that each of the new or strengthened powers proposed under An Act to strengthen environmental protection and enforcement has been developed with a close eye on ensuring that all rights are respected. Everything in the act fully complies with the requirements of the Charter of Rights.

1630

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: There is no quorum.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's nice to see you in the chair this afternoon.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, you might say, I just wanted to segue a little bit here for the record. As I said before, there were a number of speakers, and I think it's important to recognize that there have been some very positive comments from both the opposition and the third party.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Thank you. You're a nice guy.

Mr O'Toole: In many cases, including the member for Kingston and The Islands, their job, their role here is to oppose or point out potential weaknesses in legislation. We as a government listen and make appropriate amendments and changes, but at the end of the day it is our duty to govern respectfully for all the people of Ontario.

I particularly paid close attention to the comments of the member for Riverdale as the official critic for that party and watchdog for the environment. I believe she speaks quite passionately on the subject. She admitted very clearly in her remarks on December 7, and I hope not to take this out of context, "Otherwise, this is a great piece of legislation which incidentally was put forward first by my colleague from Algoma when we were in government." The member for Algoma I think is respected for his commitment as well.

The difference in any case is that this government translates policy consultation into legislation. The ability to govern and manage respectfully has been missing for the last number of years in this province. That's the key: to take the 10 years of consultations and studies and turn them into meaningful, strong pieces of legislation.

I'm very pleased to speak today with respect to this legislation, Bill 82. I think the member for Wentworth North, Mr Skarica, was looking at some of the records of the day in the dispute, or debate, on Bill 82. I will start with what he said on December 7, when he was examining the record of the previous government. I'm quoting:

"All right, look at the record. Let's look at it in my area." His riding is Wentworth North. "We had two dump issues in Hamilton-Wentworth. One of them was in my riding. A dump was proposed to be put in in Greensville.

"The issue first came up when the Liberals were in power. At that time it was going to be one of the world's largest dumps." That was under the then Liberal government. "The member at that time, who was the Minister of Education, wouldn't take a position on it. He was in cabinet and he felt he couldn't take a position on pretty well the most important environmental issue in our area." The typical Liberal position is not to take a position, and that's in the record here. "The voters rewarded him for that position" - or lack of it - "by not voting for him and he lost the election to an NDP member" - hoping to have more representation, I gather.

"During the NDP regime" - in the same issue - "we had 140 days of hearings on this dump" in Greensville. "To put that in perspective, that's almost as long as the O.J. Simpson trial." I thought it an interesting analogy. "At the end of that trial....

"The NDP didn't get off on this issue, because after 140 days of hearings the environmental board said: `There's no way that this dump should go in. It's too dangerous.'" What did they do? "Cabinet disapproved the dump."

Mr Skarica makes a very good point, and this is going back to the legislation that I want to make some important contributions on here this afternoon. It clearly puts in place a number of measures of enforcement and those measures of enforcement commit the government, through policy and legislation, to deliver on environmental protection. We should be held accountable. This is the legislation that we support, and I expect unanimous support for this legislation.

With our proposals in place, breaking the environmental laws will cease to be as attractive a choice as perhaps it has been in the past. All those who have always complied with the requirements of environmental legislation will obviously continue to do so, but with the knowledge that the laws will be applied equally across the province.

There's one point the Minister of the Environment wanted emphasized, as I said earlier, which is that everything in the act will fully comply with the requirements of the Charter of Rights.

I now want to turn to the various provisions of the act and talk about how they bring about fairness and how rights are being protected.

As the parliamentary assistant for agriculture, Harry Danford, mentioned the other day, and Doug Galt from Northumberland touched on in his remarks, one of the areas where there hasn't been a fair situation is in dealing with illegal waste practices. This was also a problem in my riding some years ago.

I'm going to devote most of my talk to the area of waste, which has provided so much of the impetus for the private member's bill and for this legislation we are debating today.

For starters, there's the obvious problem of having some people believing they are above the law while others must meet it. Some operators choose to circumvent the proper process for disposing of waste as a way of lowering their operating costs and increasing their profit margin. This, we all know, is not fair for the law-abiding operators. We are in the majority and favour those who choose to meet their legal obligations. They know full well that some of their competitors are cutting a few, or several, corners for profit. We do not support that motive and this law intends to end it.

Bill 82, An Act to enhance environmental protection and enforcement, proposes new powers that will even out this situation of those who comply with the law and those who don't.

The act's provisions for prohibiting illegal waste disposal will be expanded to give the ministry the ability to charge individuals who facilitate, arrange for or broker illegal dumping practices, and not just the person physically doing the deed. This provision would mean that the brains behind the illegal waste schemes will know they have a much greater chance of getting caught and prosecuted.

The behind-the-scenes types have become increasingly emboldened as they've seen that their ability to operate has remained essentially uncontested to this point. This legislation intends to address that, when passed. There will be far more pressure on them to operate legally if they see themselves as increasingly vulnerable to prosecution. Naturally, anyone charged with illegal deposits of waste has recourse to all the normal procedural safeguards which -

Mr Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The standing orders of the House say that members should not refer at length to debates of the current session or read unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or other documents.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Which standing order?

Mr Caplan: Standing order 23(d).

Mrs Boyd: There's one about not speaking when you're not in your chair.

Mr Caplan: Very good.

Speaker, I would ask for your opinion on this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I wanted to address the member for Durham East. You can't read a whole bunch of other debates. The reason for it, of course, is that we don't see the necessity of having them in Hansard twice. Other than that, I welcome your comments on the debate and the environment and the bill at hand.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do like to receive instructions so I can improve, as all of us should. The member for Oriole I'm sure learned many of those manoeuvres from his mother, who was a member here and whose seat he took. Members watching today would know that when she left the House to run federally, he took his mother's seat, which is really appropriate, and she probably taught him that rule. But, not being so well schooled in that, I do take the advice of the Speaker.

1640

To make reference to this in some sense of passion, it's the illegal activity that this bill is designed to - one of the instances is the act of electronic tracking. I found this, particularly in the age of technology, to be something - there are such large expanses in some of the rural areas of my riding of Durham East potentially at risk of illegal dumping practices, and there are methods and technologies today to fingerprint, to track these activities and enforce the laws of this province. It is important to bring in those tools for the investigative units in the field to enhance the provisions of enforcement in this legislation.

Very clearly, they're proceeding with great caution so they won't have any opportunity of indiscriminate use of the tracking devices. Of course, there are provisions in this legislation such as that. Such devices would only be used under the authority of a court order. When we can satisfy the court that we have good reason to believe that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed, there will be strict standards and reasonable provisions before any of these tracking procedures will be used.

Another important provision is the ability to seize equipment. We all know, whether they're bulk tank carriers or other kinds of equipment used in the perpetration of an offence, they're really assets of the companies. Those assets, whether legal or illegal, are now going to be seized if they're part of the committing of a crime or an offence under this legislation. In this case, it's not just the operator of the vehicle; it's the licensing, the ownership, all of those technical provisions of being able to trace it back to those working behind the scenes.

This legislation is a very strong piece to strengthen environmental protection and it's something that all parties have commented on. As I said, the member for Kingston and The Islands as well as the member for Riverdale, people who I believe have paid attention to this legislation, indeed are on the record as commenting on it, and I would like to continue with a few of those quotes. They've said very clearly that they support the legislation. They of course, in their position as opposition and critics of the government, are going to bring forward what they believe are the only salient points to be made with respect to the enforcement measures, perhaps the actual number of staff in the field. We're bringing in actual tools for the enforcement people to be able to commit to the protection of the environment. They've talked and talked.

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: This legislation has real teeth, as the member beside me says, and I respect it.

Going right back, my riding, the wonderful riding of Durham East, is fringed by the Oak Ridges moraine, a very sensitive environmental protection area, and we have Lake Ontario to the south and we have many creeks and valleys in the area. I think this legislation will go a long way to prosecute those people who have been accustomed to abusing the environment, and there are clearly a number of technical matters in this bill that give the tools to those who are enforcing the provisions of this legislation in the field.

I have to look at the leadership of the minister, the Honourable Norm Sterling, who has attended in many areas throughout the world. Just recently I gather he was in Kyoto, and he was also in South America, looking at emission and other standards. He's just brought before us the clean air provisions with the Drive Clean program. His actions are testimony to his stewardship of the environment. I'm satisfied that my constituents, indeed all the people of Ontario, now have a minister who's not just radicalizing and protesting; he's bringing forward an enforcement piece of legislation that will certainly be a benchmark, and not just in this province. I put it to you that it will be throughout this whole country. In fact, in the climate of North America where we're so close to our neighbours, this sets us above, setting standards of enforcement so that we Ontarians will enjoy the standard of life and quality of air and water and land that we can live with and that our children can live with in the future.

From working at his side, I know the member for Northumberland - I'm sorry he's not here, because I am flattering him - has worked tirelessly, listening to and consulting with a number of constituent groups throughout this province, to bring forward and perfect this legislation. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to relate it to my riding of Durham East, a rapidly growing area, an area that needs to be protected, that needs development, of course, but that needs to have respect first for the environment. This legislation and the processes it puts in place give me a great deal of confidence that the minister has acted after consultation. Arguably, the member for Algoma may have been the forerunner in his consultations. I'm sure our minister is pleased to share the credit. I would hope that all parties would support this. It's the right thing to do; it's the right time to do it.

This is really a plea from a simple backbencher. I'm not the parliamentary assistant but I have a great deal of interest, as do all of my peers in the Conservative government. A healthy environment is a healthy community; it's a healthy economy. They work together. You can't pull them apart. You have to believe in it. I believe, from what I see in the legislation, that with the enforcement of the standards that we have in this province, we will all sustain a much healthier future.

I want to take the last couple of minutes here and say that we're setting a very high standard. We have enforcement tools, and clearly this Minister of the Environment has taken the next step to prosecuting the abusers of our environment. I am very pleased to support the bill and I look forward to comments from other members.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'll just comment briefly on the member for Durham East's comments. I realize that he has addressed his comments mostly to the waste disposal point of view, but when we say "environment," it encompasses a huge number of issues. We may say lakes or rivers or the forests up north, but it also includes emissions from cars, trucks and what have you. Fires and all kinds of things are involved when we say "protect the environment."

The bill has been introduced and, yes, we will support it because we have nothing better, even though the government has been told many times that this is just the beginning but does not give legislative power, the real teeth, if you will, for enforcement. They have been tooting their horn about getting rid of red tape and stuff like that. What is the purpose of approving laws and bylaws, passing legislation, if we then don't have the regulatory enforcement power to see that our environment, above and below the ground, is well protected by enforcing those laws? This legislation does not give us that.

As a matter of fact, just to tell you briefly how wide our environment is and how important it is, the development charges bill, Bill 98, if I remember well - because of the downloading, those municipalities don't have enough inspectors any more to inspect septic tanks. That is part of our environment. Again, there are no teeth, there's no power, there's no legislation to make those enforcements.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): At this late time in the government's mandate, months before we're to go to the next general election, we have a government that has decided to introduce a bill to try to clean up its image when it comes to the environment. You know and I know, and I think most voters in Ontario know, that when it comes to the environmental record of this government, they certainly do not stack up against even some of the most regressive governments this province has seen.

We've seen this government decimate the Ministry of the Environment since they came to power in 1995. I'll speak to that a little bit later in my comments. We see a government that is cozy with business and that is prepared to turn a blind eye, in some cases, to what polluters are doing in this province. We all know that the environment is something we need to protect, not only because it's important to us and our future generations in Ontario, but our economy depends on a safe environment, a clean environment for all citizens, including the corporate citizens of Ontario.

1650

I find it highly interesting that the government has finally decided, after stalling for three and a half years, to bring this much-touted legislation into the House, given its environmental record. I hearken back to a radio talk show that I listened to last spring here in Toronto on Radio Noon, when one day Norm Sterling, the Minister of the Environment, was on the radio talking about his much-touted Drive Clean program. He tried to put a good spin on it and he tried to put a good face on it, but the public didn't buy it then. In fact, the following day the phone calls were overwhelmingly hostile to what the minister had said, and they had to do a second show to give the other side of the story. So I think people understand that this government is not environmentally friendly and this bill will not do that.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's interesting to hear the members opposite crow about their great achievements in environmental protection, but I think the member for Durham East pinpointed very effectively that we had introduced the bill.

We get criticism from the members opposite about the lack of enforcement. It's curious to note that even when there was a full complement of enforcement inspectors, you ended up having as many problems in getting charges through the courts and having the Ministry of the Environment in the early 1990s and the mid-1980s testify to the strength and validity of its success in environmental prosecutions.

If you start looking at some of the regulations under the various bills that had been put forward by the two previous governments, you end up having a situation of extreme over-micromanagement of the definition of so many things. An example would be how the regulations back in those days defined inert materials, yet here we had business people taken to court and it wasn't proven in the courts of law of this province.

Here we have the members opposite boasting about having more enforcement inspectors, yet in those days they weren't any more successful at the rate of prosecutions in the courts than we've been. The whole issue is bogus when it comes to the lack of enforcement. They haven't got any other fallback position, except that if you pass the law, you have 1,800 bureaucrats standing around figuring out, "Who are we going to prosecute today in the courts?" We end up having the commissioner on protection of the environment as an adjunct to that whole situation.

It seems to me we've moved on the bill, something they never -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Comments and questions? The member for Oriole.

Mr Caplan: I'd like to congratulate the member for Durham East for his comments, or rather for his ability to read passages of Hansard. Very well done, sir. I must say, complimenting the Minister of the Environment for taking action, really for plagiarizing a bill by another member, is really poor. This Minister of the Environment has been hauled on the carpet by many environmental groups, by the auditor of this province, by the Premier for his lack of protection, for his lack of caring, for his lack of ability to get anything done to protect the environment for all of us in Ontario. Water quality, air quality, emissions standards - unbelievable that the member would stand up and compliment this Minister of the Environment.

The other comment I would make is that the member said, "We'll now have the tools for enforcement." That's wonderful; we have tools but we have no enforcers. We have nobody who's going to be able to use those appropriate tools if this legislation does pass. These are not bureaucrats we're talking about. We've seen a reduction of about 25% in the enforcement branch at the Ministry of the Environment. You have 25% fewer people going out to different sites around the province to ensure that there is compliance with environmental regulation, to ensure that there is prosecution of people who are not adhering to the standards we've set. If there are no people, if they are not there, then it doesn't matter what you put in a bill, it doesn't matter how strong it is, it has no effect.

The Deputy Speaker: Response, the member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: I want to thank the members for Yorkview, Cochrane South and Etobicoke-Rexdale for their comments. I have other comments, but I just want to respect the comments I made for the Minister of the Environment.

We all want clean air, water and land. There's no question of that. Here's the deal; the member for Wentworth North said it and I have to repeat this. He said the opposition and third party have a holier-than-thou attitude, and I see that clearly coming through this afternoon again. That's not the debate here, that's the politics of being here, I suppose, but every single one of us cares about the environment. I could name but three of my constituents - Libby Racansky, Elva Reid, Mavis Carlton. They are people I have known since I was a regional and local councillor. They know that I care about the environment and they know that the members here, who have all spent time in local government, I'm certain, care about the environment.

Our minister has taken time with Bill 82 to put in place some significant measures to enforce, and those that find disagreement with those specifics should make those comments in the House so that they state what they stand for. What are your policies? We've stated ours clearly.

I want to finish off by clarifying the comments of the member for Wentworth North with respect to the decision against the Greenville dump site, started by the Liberals, studied by the NDP and the conclusion is here. It was this government that made the decision to stop the dump at Greenville in the Hamilton area. This government is charged with a very serious responsibility of being a government of action. It's fine to criticize, but this government has the courage to investigate, to listen and to legislate. That's why I'm impressed with supporting this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for London Centre has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Attorney General concerning the McLean-Thompson matter. This will be debated tonight at 6 o'clock.

I also want to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Renfrew North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Deputy Premier concerning the McLean-Thompson matter. This will be debated right after the other.

Further debate?

Mr Gerretsen: I request unanimous consent, in order to speed this matter along, to share my 20 minutes with the member for Yorkview.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands seeks unanimous consent to debate and to share his time with the member for Yorkview. Is there consent given? Is it agreed? I didn't hear very many "agreeds," and I just wonder if you heard the question. Is it agreed? It is agreed.

Mr Gerretsen: I appreciate that very much. I'm just trying to help the government along because it wants to implement its policies, which we know in some aspects are very draconian. But on the other hand, I have a few comments to make and so does the member for Yorkview, so we thought we'd put our speeches together in a 20-minute session rather than taking up 20 minutes each.

I suppose to the general public out there watching this and listening to the back-and-forth comments about, "We're better on the environment than you were when you were in government," or than the third party was when they were in government, I think the general public doesn't really want to hear that. The general public wants to know, what is the state of our environment in Ontario and what is the environment likely to be as a result of legislative changes in the future?

1700

We know what the state of the environment is. Just recently we heard that Ontario, in all the jurisdictions in North America, was the third-worst polluter, behind two of the southern states in the United States. I, as an Ontarian, as a Canadian, take absolutely no pride in that whatsoever. I had always thought that we lived in a country and in a province where we cared about the environment collectively, as different governments have come and gone, and as a society; where we truly cared about it, in the same way that the member for Durham East was talking about. Unfortunately the record, certainly of this government, has been anything other than that they care about the environment. I'm sure that some members of the government would take exception to that, but they have to look at the record.

The record is that we're the third-worst polluter. The record is that the World Wildlife Fund in April 1996 gave Ontario an F on its efforts to protect ecologically significant areas. Even Alberta - all of us have this idea that Alberta is a place where everything is free and easy and cowboys roam the prairies, and there's oil, and nobody really cares about the environment; that's the impression that we're sometimes left with - was given a B; we were given an F.

Our own Environmental Commissioner, a person who is employed not by the province of Ontario, not by the government by Ontario, but a person who is directly responsible to this Legislative Assembly, an officer of the Legislative Assembly, what does our Environmental Commissioner say about the state of the environment here in Ontario? Not too long ago, in her 1996 annual report to the Legislature, she said that if we continue along this path, our right to a healthy environment will be jeopardized. We cannot afford to focus on short-term savings at the expense of long-term environmental health.

I see the Minister of the Environment is here. I like the Minister of the Environment as a person.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know he likes me and therefore he'd like me to correct him. The report which identifies Ontario as the third worst-polluter in North America is a 1995 report.

The Deputy Speaker: That's very interesting information, but it is not a point of order.

Mr Gerretsen: If what the Minister of the Environment is saying is correct, and I don't doubt him on this, then I still say to you, sir, why haven't we done something about it? Do you like being known as the third-worst polluter in North America? I don't and neither do a lot of people who are affected as the result of pollution every night.

Hon Mr Sterling: We've done something about it.

Mr Gerretsen: He says, "We have done something about it." Let's just talk about the record of your government with respect to the environment over the last three and a half years. What have you done? You have cut the compliance and enforcement branch by $15 million. These are the people who actually go out and see if the current laws related to the environment are being enforced. What did you do? You cut them by $15 million, or 30% of their total budget. The inspection staff was reduced by 141 jobs. In other words, in 1995 there were 141 more people working for the Ministry of the Environment, making sure that environmental regulations were being adhered to in this province than there are right now.

Earlier we heard the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale talking, blustering on about the fact that there's no greater success with respect to any enforcement regulations on the environment. He is wrong. Let me just give you some figures as to what's happened with respect to the charges against polluters: 683 charges were laid in the first 10 months of 1996 compared to 1,037 in 1995, a 21% reduction. You know what happened?

Hon Mr Sterling: Same number of convictions.

Mr Gerretsen: He says the same number of convictions, but it's very interesting that the amount of fines actually dropped by some 57%. In other words, you weren't collecting as much in fines as you were because of the cuts that you have brought to the ministry. What's happened with respect to the prosecution unit within your ministry? What's happened there? I'm sure the people of Ontario want to know. What's happened is that there were 10 staff people in that branch by 1990, when the Liberal Party gracefully handed the government over to the NDP. Do you know how many people were left in 1996?

Mr Bradley: I hope 10.

Mr Gerretsen: No, not 10. Four. You had four members in your prosecution department.

Do you know what has happened with respect to the number of water monitoring stations in Ontario? We all want clean water in this province, don't we? That has fallen from nearly 700 of these water monitoring stations in 1991 to just over 200 in 1996. As a matter of fact, the laboratory services in Thunder Bay, in my hometown of Kingston and in London have been lost. There have been significant job reductions in that area in the Toronto lab.

Let's go a little bit further. Let's talk about the capital support payments that used to be paid to municipalities for new water and sewage construction. Do you know what has happened there? The $142 million in capital grants that used to be given to municipalities for water and sewer projects has been eliminated, making it much tougher on municipalities to meet the ever-growing demands there are because of all of the downloading that we have heard so much about in this House already. This is just another thing that has happened. No more capital money for water and sewage construction programs.

How many other programs have been cancelled within the general confines of the environment? I will tell you some of the programs that have been cut. The Home Green Up program was cut $8.6 million.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm glad we cut that sucker.

Mr Gerretsen: I want to quote the minister correctly. He stated just now in the House, just in case Hansard didn't get it, "I am glad we cut that sucker." That's what he said. That's another $8.6 million lost from the environment.

How about support for the blue box programs? Everybody now supports the blue box programs.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: Well, maybe not everybody, but certainly the vast majority of people, when you compare that to 15 or 20 years ago, when it was just an idea out there with some really concerned environmentalists. It is now widely accepted by everyone.

Do you know what you did? You cut it by $5.6 million.

Let's go on to one more, the rural and urban beach cleanup program. That's the program, I know, Speaker, that you have a special interest in. Do you know what has happened to that? Some $9.2 million gone.

I will turn it over to my colleague the member for Yorkview in a few moments. It is nice that all of us in this House are in favour of a clean environment, and it is nice to talk the language because there is nothing as depressing as to live in a place like Toronto, where I'm located on the 26th floor in my apartment close to here, and on a nice, beautiful, sunny summer day seeing nothing but a yellowing film over Toronto. That is discouraging. I know the minister as well can see that same yellow film that I see on those days.

I get very discouraged. Yes, you've introduced a bill, a bill that goes on for some 96 pages, which was introduced on November 23, 1998. I wonder if we will ever see third reading of this bill, with the rapidly approaching election. My colleagues are correct. This bill was introduced to make it look as if this government is more interested in the environment than it really is. I would like the people of Ontario to remember that. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague the member for Yorkview.

Mr Sergio: I'm delighted to join the debate and add, during these few minutes, some points on Bill 82.

1710

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to pass this for second and third reading right now.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to hear. When I'm talking I don't want anybody else talking.

The minister from Carleton has asked for unanimous consent to pass this right now. Is it agreed? I heard a no.

The Chair recognizes the member for Yorkview.

Mr Sergio: I am going to compliment the Minister of the Environment for having the fortitude to introduce this bill, even though it's late. Late as it is, at least we have something to debate.

The minister, I'm sure, had all the good intentions to provide this House with a bill with the necessary tools that would really make a difference to our environment. As I was saying before, when we say "our environment," it doesn't mean our lakes and our rivers; it includes everything over and above and below our earth as well. It is not the fire in Hamilton, it is not the pollution that we see on a daily basis here and there; it includes everything. We attach great importance to our environment.

But I have to say, with all respect to the minister, that I'm not sure his intention was to introduce it in such a way. I would call this a bill introduced by a minister, yes, but under the strong direction of our Premier, Mr Harris, because he says, "That's the way I like to have it."

They make a big story about clamping down on red tape and stuff like that. I'm afraid that this piece of legislation, when it is finally approved and it has to be enforce, will end up on the books of obscure municipalities where they don't have the tools and the means to conduct even the inspections, let alone the enforcement. They won't have the manpower to conduct the inspections.

I don't have to tell you, because I'm sure the minister has been here long enough, how it works when you send out inspectors to inspect a certain problem. We are not limited to Metropolitan Toronto here; we are dealing with lakes and rivers and septic tanks and all kinds of inspections that require attention and action. I have to say that this bill does not provide that.

Some of the previous speakers said how many cuts have been made to this department. Why? Because, as a whole, the government had to come up with some $6 billion to compensate for their tax cut. The Premier and the Minister of Finance said, "OK, Mr Sterling, Minister of the Environment, we want $125 million from your department," and from the other departments as well. We know the cuts to the health department and the education department.

That is what it has done, because when you say, "We introduce legislation to improve and protect our environment" -

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Speaker: Would you please check for a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker:. Please check.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Yorkview.

Mr Sergio: As I was saying, it is very hard to take this piece of legislation very seriously, with all due respect to my friend the Minister of the Environment, when you have cut not only the budget of the Ministry of the Environment but you have cut the manpower, the staff, by such a huge amount that it has to make a difference. Consider a 36% cut in the number of jobs with respect to protection, if you will, in the environment ministry. The budget has been cut by 42%, $121 million. What are the consequences of that? It is a fact that if you don't have the manpower, if you don't have the money, you cannot provide compliance with respect to inspections and enforcement. That's plain and simple.

Since the last three years, now we have this piece of legislation. You would think they would have introduced a piece of legislation with the tools and the power to give not only the people in his ministry but also the people of the various municipalities, where a lot of the real work will have to be done, the power, the inspectors, the manpower and the money do that. Well, they don't.

When you combine the various cuts to the ministry itself, when you combine the cuts because of the downloading to the various municipalities - small municipalities and regional government - you will have a decline in the protection and enforcement of the laws of our environment. It is plain and simple and you cannot escape from that.

Let me go back to what the now Premier said back in 1995. That was in the Toronto Star of June 5, 1995: "I don't think you'll find a cent there cut out of the environment. We were able to find $6 billion in cuts without cutting the environment." This was our Premier back in June 1995. If the number of charges have dropped by more than half in 10 months in 1996, it is because of that, because the manpower is not there, the money is not there. We don't have any more those people who can go out week after week, month after month, go and put pressure.

It's easy to put on paper here - and again, I'm very pleased that the minister is in the House - in readable language what they intend to do, but how they're going to do it is the major problem because they don't have the money, they don't have the power. They have reallocated the funds from their department and other departments elsewhere.

Municipalities cannot do it. We have many municipalities that don't have sewers; they have wells, for example. We have very small municipalities, and they even cut the qualified people to do those inspections. The minister, I have to say, is not taking that into consideration with this particular bill.

I would say to the minister, we are ready to go ahead with it because it's an improvement, it's something that we didn't have before, but do it and do it right and do it better for our environment.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Marchese: I want to congratulate the members for Kingston and The Islands and Yorkview for adding to the list that I had begun of abuses against the environment and against the Ministry of the Environment.

The member for Kingston and The Islands added several which I picked up: the blue box program cuts of $5.6 million, I think you said, and the rural beach cleanup, which I think is another $9 million. The list is endless. It goes on and on.

We're having a monologue here with the Minister of the Environment because we say, "Here are the abuses," and he says, "No." I wait for the Minister of the Environment to tell us what exactly, if anything, he has done to help me and the environment on these matters.

They say that magically this bill will in itself be a deterrent. Presumably, therefore, we're not going to need as many enforcement officers to go out and investigate and make sure the compliance is achieved. I'm assuming that either the law will say to those people, "Don't you dare," which I don't think in itself will work, or he's saying, "With a diminished number of people, we can do the job."

1720

Speaker, you know yourself that your government is very fond of talking about toolboxes to do any particular thing, as you recall the download. Here we've got a bill and there is an absence of a toolbox with which to do the job. What happened to that toolbox? You've been so proud to present toolboxes on everything else. We need one for this bill, and it is absent. One toolbox would do, because that's all you've offered for everything else. Bring forward the toolbox.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm really happy to respond here, particularly to the NDP, which is responsible, as you know - in 1995, when we heard about Ontario being the third-worst polluter, who was in power? The previous government, the NDP government; a shameful record. Quite frankly, it was because of that shameful record, of both of the previous governments, that we have taken such strong initiatives as Drive Clean, as the $200-million water protection fund, as the $5-million Ontario Great Lakes renewal fund, as the new Environmental Protection Act, as the new air quality standards, which were not in place under your government and should have been put in place under your government. That was neglected by the Liberals, was neglected by the previous governments - over 20 years of neglect. We are attacking those. We are remedying those.

Of course, the piece of legislation we have here today, where we are enhancing our enforcement, is very important. I note that members opposite don't believe we want to pass it. I ask them for their co-operation that we pass it through second and third reading today. Let's do it today. Let's have it done today. Let's call their bluff. Far, far too often we've heard their bluff, but when it really comes down to action there's only one government that has shown action on the environment, and that's the PC government.

Mr Bradley: The greatest action this government has come forward with is spending money on advertising, of course paid for by the grateful taxpayers of this province. I feel sorry and sympathetic for the Minister of the Environment. They've taken away all the resources he's had, the staff he needs, the clout he needs to carry out his responsibilities. "When in doubt, shout," they say, and the minister got up and shouted, which is fine with me. They have taken away all his resources. I'm on his side when he's looking for those resources.

I want to say as well that they took away his responsibilities for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I may disagree with a lot of things this minister does or doesn't do. The one area where I thought he was doing a marvellous job was in trying to protect the Niagara Escarpment. So what happened? Mike Harris, who criticized him many times for not bringing in this Drive Clean program when we know that was blocked in the Premier's office, took away from, if I can use his personal name, Norm Sterling - he was the provincial minister for resources development at the time. He had a plan developed to save the Niagara Escarpment. What happened? They took away the responsibility for trying to protect the escarpment from the Ministry of the Environment and from Norm Sterling, and gave it to the good old boys, who now are in charge of the Niagara Escarpment, the friends of Bill Murdoch, the people who used to applaud all those severances they used to grant along the Niagara Escarpment.

I can understand the minister wanting to get up and do a lot of shouting now to protect his flanks, but I'm going to tell you I'm not critical of this man. I'm sympathetic with the member for Carleton, who has had all of his resources and staff taken away from him.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Brampton North, I was putting off that point of order because I didn't see anything out of order, but I'll entertain it now if you want to.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It doesn't matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mrs Boyd: I just have to congratulate the member for Kingston and The Islands and the member for Yorkview for provoking such a display from the normally temperate Minister of the Environment. I must tell you I missed a lot of what you said because I was in and out of my office and back and forth in front of the television, but it must have been wonderful not only to provoke this emotional display from the Minister of the Environment, but to encourage the wonderful old-boy applause from all the old boys to support him in terms of that.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Who are you calling an old boy?

Mrs Boyd: Oh, and one old girl. I'm sorry. I withdraw, Mr Speaker: one old girl as well.

I must say that the Minister of the Environment has had a bad week, and so it must have felt great for him to be able to be unmuzzled and to come into this room and yell at all his tormentors the way he did, especially his tormentor who spoke first for the Liberal Party. We all know that that was what that display was all about.

The Minister of the Environment, like every other member of this government whenever they want to try and defend themselves and their terrible record, goes on the offensive and acts like a bully about everything. That is exactly what you did. You start accusing everyone else and don't accept your own responsibility for your own terrible record.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister from Durham West, did you want to address a point at this point? The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere?

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): No, it's all right.

The Deputy Speaker: Responses?

Mr Gerretsen: There have been very few speeches that have been corroborated between myself and the member for Yorkview that have ever had the kind of response that our speeches had. Somehow, something tells me that our speeches had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I do appreciate the Minister of the Environment being here and listening to it all. I hope that he will go back to his office now, take out some of the old budgetary documents, look at some of the old figures of how many people we actually had in the various pollution areas, how many people we had in the various enforcement areas before, and maybe he will come to the realization that what he has been doing over the last two to three years while he has been in office just isn't enough.

It isn't enough to come in with a bill on November 23, which is less than three weeks of sittings left in this House, and to expect this House to pass a giant bill of 93 pages. If the minister had really been concerned about this matter - and he is the government House leader as well; he is the man who controls what takes place in this House - he could have brought this bill in much earlier, because as House leader he could bring that bill in at any time. We could have had second reading debate. We could have had public hearings on it. I know there are many organizations and individuals out there who would want to comment on this bill. We could have given this bill third reading and it could have been given royal assent.

Unfortunately, even if that had happened, it would still not have put back the money into his ministry that's been taken out in the enforcement area and in the protection area. That's over 30%: 141 jobs lost; $50 million alone in the enforcement area. That is the legacy that this minister will have to take with him once he leaves office next May.

1730

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bisson: In starting up these comments, I just want to clarify the record. This outburst on the part of the Minister of the Environment I think was caused by my friend -

The Deputy Speaker: It's quite in order for you to correct something that you say. It is not in order for you to correct something that somebody else says.

I would like to direct your attention to the bill at hand and invite your debate.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I must say I am impressed.

I must say, however, that I'm not very impressed with this particular bill. Yes, I have to admit that the bill in itself is a step in the right direction and I also have to admit there are parts of this bill that are fairly progressive. There are some parts of this bill that are trying to deal with the issue of how we can get tougher on polluters, because we know that in Ontario, as in other jurisdictions, there are people who are always trying to, let's say, work just outside of the law or sometimes way outside of the law to cut corners so they can save themselves dollars, and who in doing so pollute our environment.

This government has chosen to copy a bill that was put forward by Bud Wildman, our member for Algoma, who had a previous private member's bill that was passed a few years ago that dealt with this particular issue, but at the time the government chose not to call the bill forward and enact it. They said: "No, we're smarter than everybody else. Nobody else can have a good idea in this House. We're going to wait and we're going to do it ourselves."

What we essentially have is the Minister of the Environment, late in the mandate of his government, who recognizes his government is vulnerable on the question of the environment when it comes to the voters of Ontario, scrambling, trying to figure out, "What do I do before I go into the election to tell people, `Me, Norm Sterling, good for environment'?

"Ah, Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma, the New Democratic member of the House, had a pretty good bill. Maybe we can go back and dust the dust off that one, dust off his bill that was passed in this House a couple of years ago at second reading, and essentially take the structure of that bill and enact it into a government bill so that we, Tory government, can be seen as being real strong for the environment."

It ain't gonna work. It doesn't wash, as we might say, because the actions of this government are what the people of Ontario will decide upon when it comes to the next provincial election on this issue.

We know the facts are these: The government, since 1995, has decimated the Ministry of the Environment, decimated the Ministry of Natural Resources when it comes to its ability to do the job.

I'll give you a quick example: many instances in my riding now where cottagers, companies, individuals go to either the Ministry of the Environment or MNR, which is the other sort of environment ministry that I in my riding and many other northern ridings deal with, and find that the ministry no longer has the capacity to do the things that it is mandated to do both by cabinet order and by legislation.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Here you hear the government, and I think it's very telling that the parliamentary assistant to northern development talks about the Ministry of the Environment as something from the police state -

Interjection: And MNR.

Mr Bisson: - and the MNR guys as something from the police state. That tells everything of this government, because now what we have is, as a result of this government's action, ministries that are no longer able to fulfill their mandates as set out by legislation and by order of the cabinet. Why? Because this government has cut those ministries by over 50% in staff and also substantially reduced the budgets of those ministries.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: The government - some of them are in denial and they're saying it's not true. Mr Speaker, you know, I know, the people know, the auditor knows and the people on public accounts know that that is the case. That's what this government has done. The result is that those ministries have difficulty now doing their job.

I'll give you an example. I was in just the other day at the Ministry of Natural Resources with Henry Dumouchel and his partner, who were wanting to start up a business venture in my riding. In order to be able to go forward with their business venture, they've got to sit down with the Ministry of Natural Resources, eventually the Ministry of the Environment and the city of Timmins, the public health people, to determine what the rules are to the construction of the facility they would like to build in the tourism industry.

As much as MNR is trying, it's having difficulty trying to respond to these two proponents of this business in a timely fashion. Why? Because the ministry has had their staff reduced. Henry is a pretty patient guy and so is his partner. They decided they were going to give the ministry until mid-January to get back to them with some of the information they need, and they will work according to due course when it comes to this project.

But the point that I make is this: Henry and his partner understand, in order to be good business people, they also have to be good when it comes to the environment, because they want to get into the tourism business. Quite frankly, an unclean environment in the tourism business will hurt you. They want to make sure that they follow the rules and they know what's required of them and they understand what the rules are, but the big problem is the ministry doesn't have the capability now of being able to deal with all of these applications they have to make in a forthwith manner.

The government says: "We did this Clearing the Path" - no, not Clearing the Path; we did that and it was a pretty good initiative - "We did the red tape thing. We've cut all these regulations and red tape and put them out of the way." Poppycock.

When it comes to these business people trying to get their business off the ground, they understand there are still rules you have to follow in the province of Ontario. But as business people, they want to know that the government, at least if they put rules in place that make sense and are there for a good reason, has a way of being able to communicate what those rules are, so they know what the rules of the game are when they get into their business and then, once they're there, know that the government is actually going to do what they have to do when it comes to policing - yes, policing - the regulations and laws of the province of Ontario.

If you allow companies to walk outside of the law and not prosecute them, and that's what this government has been doing to a certain extent, it means to say bad apples out there in the business sector are going out cutting corners, polluting our environment and messing it up for the responsible employers who want to do the right thing.

I take the mining industry as a good example. What mining companies and prospectors have told me since I was elected in 1990 is, "Gilles, yes, we want rules that make sense, but at the end of the day, we want to know that the rules that the government makes not only make sense but are consistent and that we know where the government is coming from and what they're going to do if people step outside the line." What the mining sector and others have told me is when you've got bad apples going out there, walking over that line and breaking the law in many instances and the government doesn't prosecute, it makes it very difficult for the legitimate people, who are trying to do business according to the rules, to compete in those kinds of situations.

What the government is doing, by way of not enforcing a lot of what you do within the Ministry of the Environment and MNR and northern development and other ones, is making it tougher on the businesses that are trying to do the right thing. If I'm competing with somebody down the road and they're cutting corners and they are able to get a bit of an advantage financially over the short term, you're making it very difficult for others not to do the same.

I just give you one example. The minister stood here at great length and gave us a two-minute rendition of everything that he's done. First of all, I think he could probably sum up in 10 seconds what he did as Minister of the Environment that's progressive, and that would be nothing. Yes, there was a problem in the Ministry of the Environment before as far as its ability to do the job is concerned. There's been a problem with the environment for many years and governments have tried to work towards fixing that up. Our government did that and Mr Bradley, when he was Minister of the Environment, did the same. But the facts are, since 1995, prosecutions and fines have dropped by 50%, since this government has taken power. Why is that? For a very simple reason. This government cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment, MNR and other such ministries and reduced their staff in some cases up to 50%, and now those ministries are unable to do their job properly.

The government thinks by introducing this bill it's going to somehow make them look like environmentalists. Let me tell you, that will not be the case.

I remember, as I said earlier, Radio Noon just about last spring sometime, when Mr Sterling got on the radio to beat his chest: "Me, Norm Sterling, want to say do good things about clean air program." My Lord, you should have heard the people call up and complain about what the government wasn't doing and about how the government was attacking principles of a clean environment by its actions. In fact, the following day, Radio Noon had to have a special program just to deal with the responses of the anger that Norm Sterling, the Minister of the Environment for the Conservative government, caused by his comments on the radio the day before, because nobody bought it. Not only did environmentalists not buy it, neither did the public and neither did the business sector.

In short, I think the bill is a good thing, I think it's going in the right direction. But on balance, what this government has done to the environment has set back this province by a number of years and that in the end is not only not good for our kids' future and the environment, but it's bad for business.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions? The Chair recognizes the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

1740

Mr Hastings: I don't know where to start on this particular approach. I guess the primary thing we need to put on the record is that the bill will provide enhanced protection for the environment, and there are different ways besides having actual people enforce the particular legislation.

Mr Gerretsen: How?

Mr Hastings: If the member for Kingston and The Islands would actually read the bill, he would see that an environmental registry will help to a great extent on that new technology, which we know members opposite are strongly against, because if they were for it, they would have brought it up in their remarks. All they keep harping on is, "You don't have the same number of enforcement people." In point of fact, there are different ways to do things. Can you imagine? There are different ways in which to enforce the law besides the traditional approach.

I want to raise a remark with the member for Cochrane South which I found absolutely intriguing: that the business community wants to see environmental protection of the old-fashioned sort. What I was talking about before, the micromanagement, and the definition of specific materials I used before, the inert matter, is one where we have had tremendous overregulation in terms of blockage of industry and development in the aggregates industry. All you have to do is go back to the regulation that deals with that point.

I would finally like to point out that if members opposite are championing such a great environmental record that they had, then why did we not get the dump problem resolved for Metropolitan Toronto back in the early 1990s instead of now, where we've got four years to deal with the problem?

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the member's comments, and I'll go back particularly to that point. What you have to understand is that good corporate citizens want to see strong laws and strong enforcement. The people who don't want strong laws, who don't want a lot of people in the Ministry of the Environment, who don't want the resources for the minister, are the people who want to pollute, but the good corporate citizens want to see a strong Ministry of the Environment with the necessary staff to carry out its mandate.

A lot of the people who have supported this government, who go to your fundraisers, are people who have always hated the Ministry of the Environment and particularly dislike the investigations and enforcement branch. You should have heard the names they used to call it back in the late 1980s when they said the Ministry of the Environment investigations and enforcement branch were showing up; I wouldn't want to use the terminology in this House that they used in referring to that branch, because they were totally independent, they were there to enforce the law and they were there to be tough but fair.

What we've seen now is a backing off. The word went out very quickly when the new government came in. They told the ministry officials, "We're supposed to be business-friendly." I thought you should be environmentally friendly, because good businesses want you to be environmentally friendly.

I always hear about the overregulation and overlegislation. Look, until this bill came forward, the only legislation we had seen in this House was legislation designed to weaken the Ministry of the Environment. If you look at the Environmental Assessment Act, those provisions are now weakened. If you look at the approvals processes, they have now been weakened by this government. That's because they want unfettered development. They don't want to take into consideration all of these things that are good for the environment but may not be good for their developer friends.

Mr Marchese: I congratulate the member for Cochrane South and would point out several things. First of all, this is the same government that has permitted self-regulation in the industry, meaning that they feel the government shouldn't be there to regulate or to monitor. You've got to question the motives of a government that introduces a bill that we support but without enforcement mechanisms in place, which means, by and large, people to make sure that monitoring happens, to make sure that enforcement happens. If the people are not there, then this bill is ineffectual. That's basically what it says and what it means.

That's all we're saying. We're not disputing the fact that this bill is not a useful thing to be introducing at this time, or indeed three years ago, as we would have hoped. What we dispute is the fact that you have done a great deal to gut your own ministry, to fire 880 people.

Mr Bradley: I bet Bob Runciman would like to see some green cops.

Mr Marchese: Sure he would. More cops on the road would be better, of course, and more enforcement officers to protect and monitor what is going on in our environment would be better.

Minister, I urge you to do again another two-minute response to tell me -

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: Please, again, help us out. Tell us how in this bill the mechanisms or the tools are in place to make this bill effective. We're telling you, without enforcement, without the people, this bill will be ineffectual. Help the constituents out. Tell me how you do that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton.

Hon Mr Sterling: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gerretsen: Doug wanted to speak.

Hon Mr Sterling: I think Doug will have an opportunity after Mr Tascona gets an opportunity to speak today.

I'm very happy to respond with regard to this, because as I mentioned in my opening remarks, when the member opposite wasn't with us - I don't know, perhaps he wasn't on duty that day; I know of his great interest in the environment - I said at that time that we have the same number of investigative officers as they had. In fact, what's happening is we're increasing them.

Mr Marchese: So who are these people who got laid off?

Hon Mr Sterling: Yes, we have made some staff reductions, and I'm not happy that we had to make them. We had to make them because they left us with a cupboard that was bare, an $11-billion annual deficit. All our ministries had to work together to try to bring our expenses down. You know what? We're doing better with less. You know why I can say that? The water is cleaner -

Mr Gerretsen: No, it isn't.

Hon Mr Sterling: You don't like it. The water is cleaner, fish are returning to Lake Ontario like they never have before. The air is cleaner this year than it was in 1994 and 1995, when you were in power. The proof is in the pudding. We want results, we don't want process like you did.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Speaker: I would like to ask unanimous consent to have the member for Etobicoke-Humber have two minutes as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? I heard a no. I'm sorry.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If there are others talking, then I'm sorry that I can't hear properly.

Interjection: Do it again.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed. The chair recognizes the member for Etobicoke-Humber.

Mr Ford: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I sit here tonight patiently listening to pollution - the discussion on pollution. I listen to the members across the floor, "Eight hundred people have been let go, 700, 200, 300" -

Mr Gerretsen: One hundred and forty-one.

Mr Ford: Now let me finish. I didn't say a word while you were talking. I say this: Mr Speaker, did you ever realize something? Do you have vision? Because the 460,000-odd people who have found new jobs since this government's been in power could stretch, with your hands out, from where you're sitting, go out, down the stairs, up the street to Wellesley Street, along to Yonge Street, up Yonge Street, along Highway 7, without one break in the line, all the way to Ottawa, circle the Parliament Buildings up there and go in and touch that Speaker's hand up there.

Can you imagine that? Did you ever drive to Ottawa along Highway 7? Mile after mile after mile. It would be a boring job to see the many hundreds of thousands of people stretched out, arm to arm, and touching the Speaker up there so they could communicate with the Speaker down here. I'm very proud of that.

They talk about pollution. The previous party had more pollution than we've got now. They keep talking about the people we laid off. They didn't have one new job that you could touch your hand and get to the bottom of your steps. There's the difference in this party over here: We are doers, not talkers.

1750

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask unanimous consent that this House pass a motion to the electors of Etobicoke-Humber that they reconsider the Tory nomination in that riding for the next provincial election.

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

The Chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: To the member for Etobicoke-Humber, you make me want to buy a bottle of Coke after that speech, because I can't help but think of that song about everybody reaching out and whatever way the song went. It was most interesting.

The Minister of the Environment has the gall to come into this House and talk about how the environment is cleaner vis-à-vis the actions of his government, and how the air in Ontario is cleaner. Every report that has come out this year has demonstrated that we had more bad-air days this past year than any other year in the history of the province. The minister can play the tune he wants, he can grab hands and reach out to the member for Etobicoke-Humber and sing the song of Coke all he wants, but at the end of the day people are going to know it's a Pepsi he's trying to sell them, not a Coke, when it comes to that particular line.

The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale said we didn't say anything about the new technologies introduced in this bill. Let's talk about that technology: a red light on the cars of the Ministry of the Environment. They're going to have flashing red lights on their cars. What technology. Then they've got another one. They're going to have registration forms by e-mail. I would not argue those are bad things, but don't come in here and try to tell us about all this technology stuff you're doing. We know in the end that the red light consists of a light bulb and a battery. I don't consider that a heck of a lot of technology.

Then he said our government was worried, as the Liberals were, about micromanagement of the Ministry of the Environment. I'll tell you, if anybody in the business sector took your attitude when it came to running their business, they'd go under in a flash, because you have to be worried about what happens on the floor as well as what happens in the till.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. I believe this act deserves our support because the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, if passed, would enhance the ability of the Ministry of the Environment to protect Ontario's air, water and land. I know we all want to see this come about.

During the debate today on the act we've heard from members from all sides of the House, and what comes through clearly is that in every case there is a desire to see a better-protected environment.

A clean environment is, after all, essential to the health and well-being of our communities. By well-being, I'm referring to both health and prosperity. Environmental and economic well-being are mutually interdependent. You can't have a strong economy with a compromised environment, at least not for long, and the long-term is what we're all concerned with. Sustainability means economic growth that doesn't compromise the environment, that in fact ensures its protection.

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the importance the environment industry itself plays in the Ontario economy. The Ontario government and the Ministry of the Environment have certainly recognized this importance and have worked closely with the environment industry sector to ensure its ability to compete both in Ontario and abroad. It's not only companies in the business of protecting the environment that are thriving; it's also companies that adhere to the highest environmental management standards in their operations.

The numbers cited by John O'Toole from a Ministry of the Environment report comparing the performance of environmentally responsible companies with the TSE 300 are truly impressive. This helps build the compelling case for why he environmental protection is in the best interests of all companies and industries.

A well-protected environment is, of course, in the best interests of all Ontarians in terms of their health. Perhaps the clearest example is the need for cleaner air and less smog. Being here in the middle of a major urban centre means we're all acquainted with the effects of air pollution and smog. These effects are strongest for those who are the most vulnerable: children and the aged. Smog also harms the environment and takes a big bite out of the Ontario economy by destroying crops.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I'm a big proponent of rail, especially in my riding of Simcoe Centre. There's no doubt that it's more efficient use of our resources in terms of ensuring that we have a very vibrant rail industry, and not increasing and expanding the number of lanes on the highway as we go up Highway 400.

I know that smog has been a major concern of the honourable minister, Norm Sterling. This government is tackling the number one domestic source of smog - cars, trucks and buses - with Drive Clean. We're also taking many other actions to reduce this problem and that's in spite of the inaction of the federal government in terms of putting money into the rail industry where it's needed.

You can have the best programs and standards in the world, but their effectiveness is reduced without the ability to enforce them to the fullest. With Drive Clean, enforcement comes in the form of the ability to deny registration to vehicles that don't meet our emissions standards. That's a pretty strong incentive to comply.

Unfortunately, the ministry's compliance and enforcement tools and the inability of the federal government to act have been limited in some cases, thus restricting its ability to provide the best possible protection of air, water and land.

I'd like to focus my comments on how the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act will help ensure that the Ministry of the Environment can meet its mandate through compliance with and enforcement of its policy, programs and regulations.

One of our greatest challenges is dealing with the waste produced by individuals, companies, institutions, industrial plants and so on. I know this is of concern for Ontarians from all walks of life and we're seeing the results of those concerns in many ways.

A prime example is the blue box and the various recycling programs and waste reduction initiatives ongoing across this province. We're also seeing that by and large Ontario companies want a cleaner environment and are living up to their responsibility to comply with requirements for responsibly managing their wastes.

Unfortunately, as my colleagues have commented on, there are some bad corporate players that don't want to live up to their responsibilities. They don't want to go through what they see as the hassle of managing their waste responsibly. In fact, since 1985, convicted polluters have gotten away with $10 million in unpaid fines. It's all well and good for members of previous governments to talk about the fines levied while they were in office, but the simple fact is they often weren't collected. I personally consider that an offence against both the environment and our justice system.

Sometimes it's just careless; sometimes it's just plain arrogance. The rules are for the fools, they say. They won't be saying that if we put into practice the proposals we're making under the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, which places high priority on deterring would-be polluters.

As John O'Toole said, we'll be putting some environmental offenders out of business because they're more prone to be the types who just want to make a quick buck and aren't interested in competing in any real sense of the word.

The more illegal operators that go out of business, the better it will be for the environment. Those who choose to stay and compete on more fair terms will be reducing the effects of their operations on Ontario's air, water and land. If they can do that, then more power to them, but they'll have to prove it through compliance, and compliance is the raison d'être of making sure that the environmental protections this province needs are enforced and that we seek to have compliance. That's what this government is doing.

The Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act contains many disincentives to pollute. A longer list of offences, with jail as punishment, is one such disincentive, and it's a powerful one. So are increased fines, especially backed with a greater ability to collect them.

The ministry would also have an enhanced ability to catch more of the people involved in the commission of environmental offences - not just the chump who gets caught, but the organizers, the masterminds, the people who have exploited their ability to operate silently behind the scenes, with little vulnerability to prosecution.

If disincentives aren't enough, we're also proposing, with the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, ways to increase environmental protection by increasing the ability of ministry officers to take away the tools of the trade of polluters. Taking the tools of the trade away will in many cases stop polluters dead in their tracks. Some of the initiatives we're talking about, as I indicated earlier, are seizing licence plates and permits from vehicles used to commit environmental offences, streamlining the process by which environmental officers issue compliance orders in the field, applying new -

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have two late shows, so we're going to be stopping right at 6 o'clock.

Mr Tascona: Is it 6 o'clock, Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: It is.

1800

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 37, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for London Centre has given notice of her dissatisfaction with a question to the Attorney General. That will be heard now.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I was dissatisfied with the answer of the Attorney General. He did not explain why he, as the chief law officer of the province of Ontario, who was named both as the Attorney General, the individual, and on behalf of the Ontario government, in a series of lawsuits that went back and forth in terms of the McLean-Thompson case, did not assume that responsibility and was not prepared to answer to us about how he assumed that responsibility.

I would remind you that when he was first asked about this, the first thing out of his mouth was, "You know very well that any advice that's given is privileged." It sounded as though advice was given, but it was privileged. The next thing we hear is: "Well, no, we didn't have carriage of this. It went to the Legislative Assembly." Then we hear from him a series of comments about what roles he had or didn't have, and of course we all saw that each time he got to his feet he got a note telling him to hand the question off to the Acting Premier of the day.

This is a matter of principle. The Attorney General of the province has a responsibility to know what the facts of the case are when the government of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario are named as co-defendants. It is quite true that there may be a determination that the lawyer for another body may have carriage of the case, but the responsibility to monitor that case and to be there on behalf of the public of Ontario remains with the Attorney General.

In this particular case our questions of the Attorney General were, had he been briefed on the facts of the case, was he aware that the government members were proposing a settlement in the case and what was his advice on that case?

We cannot see in either of the two written pieces of advice, either the one for the Tory caucus or the one that came to the Legislative Assembly, any indication that there was a real risk that the people of Ontario would be on the hook for paying $600,000 in this case. Even the lawyer - who made a very hasty opinion, I may add, since the first offer was made on December 2 and the letter came in dated December 3, and who knows whether it was before or after the government members made their decision at the Board of Internal Economy - said very clearly, first of all, that he had no information about the merits of the case on either side, that he was merely saying yes, in some cases it is wise to settle if you think your costs may be higher.

The lawyer for the Legislative Assembly, Mr Finkelstein, said:

"It is unlikely that Ms Thompson would succeed in any claim for damages against...the assembly," and that "Allan McLean's proposed claim for wrongful dismissal damages against...the assembly is without merit.... It would be unusual...to pay damages to Ms Thompson, the person allegedly harassed, and to also pay the legal expenses of the person who allegedly harassed her."

The minister of the crown responsible for any actions that are brought against the government of Ontario and against himself, as the Attorney General, claims to have no knowledge of either the facts of the case or any advice that may have been given. He tries to say cases are often settled. The Acting Premier tried to say that because the Hill Times, a newspaper from Ottawa, claims that the federal government pays both sides of cases, therefore it's all right in this case, without any testing under cross-examination, under oath, that somehow there is an assumption that there would have been larger costs for which the assembly would have been responsible.

Every piece of legal advice has suggested that however high those legal costs went as that testimony went on, as that case proceeded, there was very little chance that the assembly would be on the hook for those costs. The problem would be that Mr McLean, if he were found guilty, or Ms Thompson, if she were found to be incorrect, would have been responsible for those.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 37, the member for Renfrew North has -

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Doesn't the Attorney General respond?

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Are you responding for the Attorney General?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will be responding at one time, both for the Attorney General and myself, after the member for Renfrew North.

The Deputy Speaker: According to my rules, only the Attorney General or his parliamentary assistant may respond.

Therefore, again, pursuant to 37, the member for Renfrew North has five minutes.

Mr Conway: My quarrel this afternoon is with the Acting Premier, who is in a very difficult situation. I want to say here this afternoon that the people of Ontario are entitled to better answers than they have been provided, given that they are now being asked to pay $380,000 worth of public money to resolve a matter in which it is clear they had little involvement and no liability.

I want to say very clearly that on the basis of the evidence before the House, the Legislature knows the following: that there was an allegation of personal misconduct on the part of former Speaker McLean and involving a former staff person, Ms Sandi Thompson. But it was an allegation of private misconduct of a sexual nature that had nothing to do with the Office of the Assembly or the Parliament of Ontario, a private matter between two individuals, the redress of which is clearly, as it is for all other individuals, honourable members or others, in the courts as citizen against citizen.

In the last few days, after the breathtaking announcement by the cabinet-dominated Board of Internal Economy, where the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment exercised the cabinet majority in that committee to cause this payment of $380,000 to be made to Mr McLean and Ms Thompson, all we are told by Premier Harris is, "I want there to be fairness for the victims," particularly Ms Thompson, and of course, "We want Mr McLean to be looked after as well."

Well, I say on behalf of the taxpayers that that's not good enough, especially when you have a legal opinion as good as the one provided by Mr Finkelstein, to which Mrs Boyd just made reference; that however painful and difficult and tragic was the circumstance between Ms Thompson and Mr McLean, it was a private matter. The taxpayers should not be expected to pay $380,000 to solve Mr McLean's private problems, whatever they were, with Ms Thompson.

1810

To be sure, none of us - Mr Harris, Mr Gerretsen, Mrs Boyd, myself and 125 other members - none of us wants to see harm done to Ms Thompson, but she has every right to seek her redress through the courts and Mr McLean has every right to seek his protection in the courts. They have no right - most especially Mr McLean has no right to come to this Legislature and say, "I want $130,000 of public money to protect me against the claims made in a private matter by Ms Thompson."

When we agree to this settlement, we are accepting a $100,000 damage claim for Ms Thompson, and I'll tell you, the farmers and the retail workers in my constituency, who are not lawyers, would look at that and say, "That's got to be an admission of some kind of guilt." The question remains: Why are we paying $380,000 to settle a private matter between Mr McLean and Ms Thompson, particularly when our lawyer, Mr Finkelstein, says, "Don't pay, because you are not involved, you are not liable"? That's the question. There may be other issues, and I say to my friend the acting Premier, who is in a very tough position, a reasonable person is left to ask: "There must be more to this. What is going on here that we can't see?"

Taxpayers are being asked to pay $380,000, against the good advice of a first-rate lawyer. The question is then, why would you do this? This is not, as some have suggested, a matter of just a wrongful dismissal case, although I do note that Mr McLean, incredibly, is claiming as part of his countersuit wrongful dismissal because he lost his job as Speaker of the Legislature. If that isn't nonsense on stilts, I don't know what is, but that's the kind of nonsense that we are spending $380,000 worth of public money to settle.

Can you imagine a welfare mother, can you imagine an injured worker, can you imagine a hog producer out there in Ontario today, having received the back of the hand of the government of Ontario in the last few years - "You've got to do more with less," "You've got to tighten your belt"? This government will go halfway around the world to take back $10 worth of unreported income from some welfare mother with two dependent children, and crow about it, at the same time as they now offer up $380,000 of public money to settle a case in which they have no interest. Reasonable people want to know why, and that answer has not been forthcoming.

Hon Mr Johnson: I guess the first point I should make again tonight, as I made this afternoon, is I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I was some time ago. I haven't been a member of the Board of Internal Economy now I guess for about a year and a quarter or thereabouts, and I was not involved in terms of any of the meetings which have arrived at this particular decision.

The Board of Internal Economy, for those who may be watching, is composed of four government members, a Liberal member, an NDP member, and the Speaker chairs this particular committee. The committee is an independent committee of government and it's set up to look after this House, the budget of this House, the Clerk's department, the Speaker's office, the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner, the auditor. Entities which have an independence from government come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy.

I have no immediate, direct knowledge of all of the facts that have gone into this particular decision of the Board of Internal Economy, but I think they attempted to make the best possible decision, knowing the individuals involved, with the facts of the matter, an unfortunate matter that dates back for many, many months, well over a year and a half now, I think, or the better part of two years, as I can recall. Maybe what's being forgotten here is there are two individuals involved and two people have decided through this decision to put the matter behind them.

Subsequent to this decision, there were a number of lawsuits that were outstanding. I know at one time the members of the Board of Internal Economy were the focus of lawsuits, the Speaker included, as well as the individuals involved. I believe at this point in time, I've been told up until this particular resolution, that this Legislature was the subject of a lawsuit, so it's certainly broader than these two individuals.

The meter has been ticking. The money for lawyers on all sides has been running month after month, day after day, and frankly almost year after year.

This body has looked at this matter, as best I can determine, and said we can bring a resolution to this matter, a closure to this matter now with a certain sum of money, or we can wait for a year from now. Pay me now or pay me later, I guess, as the old expression goes, and if you pay me later, then how much is later? I guess if you ask the average person, "How long does it take to get through the court system and get a decision on certain matters?" most people generally know that can take months and months, if not years and years.

When you're in a position like this, sometimes you have to make tough decisions. I know from my years at municipal and provincial government that you have to make tough decisions, settlements regarding people disputes. I know through my experience with various works disputes that even something as benign as a sewer project - when they're digging sewers they can run into rocks or gas leaks or whatever and the suits come in and you have a choice. You can fight it on and on forever and pay that much in legal costs or you can settle now, even though sometimes it's aggravating, sometimes it's frustrating, and you can save the taxpayers the money.

The best I can make of it is that the members of the Board of Internal Economy, aware, yes, as members noted, that in the federal government they do spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for wrongful dismissal suits - other organizations, private sector organizations, the federal government encounter similar kinds of situations, if not precisely the same. Generally speaking, there comes a point in time where you say we make a resolution or we put the taxpayers at risk for even more and more money as the months and years go by.

So apparently they've come to this decision to settle, to put this behind them, to let the two individuals get on with their lives. I would urge the opposition - you know, by repeatedly raising this you're running roughshod over the lives of these two individuals who, through this settlement, are putting this behind them. I think it's time to make that resolution and -

The Deputy Speaker: The time for this item of business is over. This House stands adjourned until -

Mrs Boyd: You can't spin it that way.

Mr Conway: It's the most generous welfare payment I have seen for years, under the most remarkable circumstances.

The Deputy Speaker: If I could get a word in, this House stands adjourned until 6:30.

The House adjourned at 1818.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

10 décembre 1998