role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

January 4, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L124 - Wed 4 Jan 1989 / Mer 4 jan 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SMOKE DETECTORS

ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

PRODUCT INGREDIENTS

ENOSH GASTER

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

RESPONSES

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

HOME CARE

CANRON INC.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POLICE PURSUIT

TRUCKING SAFETY

WATER BOMBERS

INNOVATION CENTRE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

PETITION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MOTION

ESTIMATES

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SMOKE DETECTORS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). She will no doubt recall that I asked her on November 22 to establish an educational advisory program to inform the public about the importance of smoke detectors in homes and how these devices can save lives and reduce injuries.

I raised this matter with her following several tragic fires in the Orillia area that resulted in death and serious injuries to occupants of homes that were built prior to the mandatory installation of smoke detectors. I am referring to regulation 67/87 of the Ontario fire code, which requires electrical, hard-wired smoke alarms in all single-family dwellings built since 1976. She will recall that I pointed out that there is no such requirement for homes constructed prior to that.

I urged her to establish an educational advisory program because I felt it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to regulate and enforce the retrofit installation of electric or battery-powered smoke detectors in older buildings. Therefore, I urged her to launch an advertising program similar to those used to point out the hazards of drug and alcohol use.

Some of my constituents have told me that they recently saw short television ads of the type I suggested. I would like to commend the Solicitor General and take this opportunity to thank her for following up on my suggestions.

ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the efforts of an outstanding organization that is represented in almost every community in Ontario. This organization is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which, since its founding in 1911, has brought together industry and business groups to the forefront of the communities in which they reside.

Working collectively for a common cause, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce now boasts a membership of over 60,000 businesses. From its early beginnings, the chamber of commerce has been successful in shaping the province’s economic structure and in creating change in the political arena. Throughout the years, its influence has fostered a co-operative relationship between the public and private sectors.

I recently met with Jim Carnegie, executive director of the chamber, and we discussed many issues, including the Computerized Ontario Investment Network, known as COIN. Launched in November 1986 with the assistance of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, COIN is a computerized information network run by the chamber of commerce through its 160 local offices across the province. It is the first large-scale, community-based electronic matching service in Canada. It has brought together hundreds of entrepreneurs looking for equity capital and investors looking for places to invest their capital.

As the small business advocate, l am delighted that COIN is helping many small businesses in Ontario succeed that might have otherwise failed due to lack of equity capital. As a member of this House, I look forward to continuing the working relationship with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Hampton: It has now been little over a month since the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board announced that it thought that Ontarians could afford increases in insurance rates from 35 to 40 per cent, as it initially stated.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Stop propping that straw man up.

Mr. Hampton: I think it is only appropriate at this time to repeat a little history, particularly for the honourable member directly opposite me on the front bench.

It is interesting if you compare the insurance rates in Ontario and how they have climbed over the last five years with some of the insurance rates in western Canada and how they have climbed over the last four or five years. It is very interesting that the government sometimes wants to refer to one year if the comparison is favourable for it or to compare averages if the comparison is favourable to it. But the fact stands that no province anywhere in western Canada -- British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- has proposed an insurance rate hike of 35 to 40 per cent.

For the government to believe and to try to hold the position that consumers in Ontario should pay this, that consumers in Ontario can afford this, is nonsense. The government ought to look again at what it is doing.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a letter sent to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) about our party’s concerns with the government’s review of conservation authorities, the Burgar report.

In this letter, the leader of our party has asked the Minister of Natural Resources to bring the recommendations of the Burgar report to the public forum for full discussion. We feel that an all-party committee of the Legislature should hold hearings on the report to provide individuals and groups with an opportunity to be heard publicly.

These public hearings and information sessions are urgently required to discuss and explain the implications of the Burgar recommendations and the minister’s proposals. We find it appalling that the minister and his ministry have no plans whatsoever to consult meaningfully with the people of Ontario about this critical matter.

On this side of the House we believe Ontario conservation authorities are a true success story. They are one of the flagships of the province’s goals for sustainable development. Conservation authorities have been protectors of our natural heritage, they have improved the quality of life in Ontario, they have enhanced environmental awareness and they have protected both lives and property. To tamper with such a successful program in the back rooms of Queen’s Park is not acceptable to us or to the people of Ontario.

We trust the Minister of Natural Resources will give full support to this initiative for public hearings on the Burgar recommendations.

PRODUCT INGREDIENTS

Mrs. Sullivan: I would like to take a moment to congratulate a company in my constituency which has followed through on its commitment to list all product ingredients on its labels.

G. D. Searle, now renamed Searle Canada Inc., last August pledged to become the first pharmaceutical firm in Canada to voluntarily list all nonmedicinal ingredients in its prescription and over-the-counter drugs. With the new year just under way, Searle can boast that all of its major products now carry such labelling and the company’s complete line of products will be so labelled by March.

Canadian consumers, especially those who suffer from allergies, will benefit greatly from the convenient availability of such product information. This will be particularly useful to the more than 3.5 million Canadians who have allergies, in particular the 150,000 who are treated annually for adverse reactions to ingredients in drugs and food.

I am hopeful that other drug manufacturers will, in 1989, follow Searle’s lead and voluntarily list all nonmedicinal ingredients in their products. Public concern about potential health hazards from allergic reactions is growing and Searle’s welcome initiative is a model to be followed.

ENOSH GASTER

Mr. Reville: For 14 years now, my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Gaster have worked very hard to make certain that their son Enosh, who is developmentally handicapped, could live as much like other children as possible. It has not been easy. It has just gotten worse.

Enosh recently began suffering from seizures. These seizures come at any time of the day or night, making it necessary for someone to always be there to watch over Enosh. They have taken turns staying up all night, but because they are both employed, this has put a great strain on their lives and they have hired assistants to care for their son during the night.

The cost of this care, combined with other expenses needed to nurture their son, has caused great financial hardship to the family. They have now exhausted every possible avenue of assistance to solve their problem and they are faced with some very serious decisions regarding their son’s future, not the least of which might be having to consider institutionalizing their son. This couple has struggled heroically to keep their son at home. Surely this government must do whatever is necessary to support their efforts.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: This is an appropriate time to take a look at the situation in this province with respect to housing, regarding what has emerged through 1988 and what we can expect for 1989. First, in 1988, the possibility of home ownership was pushed further out of reach for the vast majority of Ontario residents. House prices continued their upward spiral unchecked, making the price of an average new home in Toronto more than $250,000.

Despite the minister’s rhetoric about affordable housing, it was our own government which pushed land prices yet higher by allowing government land to be sold to developers above the threshold of $4,000 per linear foot. Analysts say this could mean an increase of as much as $25,000 to $40,000 per new home. After ripping off their own $4,000 a foot for land, supposedly for affordable housing, they have the audacity to suggest the federal government give its land for free.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, as you know, well over half of the newcomers to Canada choose to come to Ontario. Currently there is in this province a large number of refugee claimants awaiting the determination of their legal status in this country.

While these people wait, they often turn to immigrant settlement service agencies for help. In the recent past, the number of people who have been seeking help has put a severe strain on many of these organizations. Twice in the past, my ministry has supplemented the funding of these organizations. The most recent of that supplementary funding expired at the end of December 1988.

Today I am announcing additional emergency funding to 14 of these agencies in the amount of $276,000 under a project we call the community projects grants program of my ministry. This special funding will cover the period from January 1989 to March 1990.

I am sure that the members of this House will join me in acknowledging the important work done by the many immigrant settlement service organizations we have in this province. This special funding recognizes the partnership between the government, with agencies such as our own Ontario Welcome House, and the community-based organizations which serve newcomers so well in this province.

RESPONSES

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Mr. Philip: While we can welcome the fact there is some funding being provided by the minister today, we should look at it in the context that the $276,000 is a small amount when funded over a period of two years.

These organizations or these groups are living from hand to mouth, from year to year, without any systematic planning by this government in terms of core funding, in terms of strategic planning and long-term goals. While we can welcome this gift from the minister, one has to say that we hope he will start to look at the overall situation of these groups and develop a long-term plan for funding them.

Mr. Cousens: I commend the minister for his efforts to assist immigrants to our country in becoming Canadians and becoming part of our society. In fact, he and I have participated in events in which we have recognized the importance that new Canadians bring to our society, to our culture and to everything that we are. Indeed, when you start talking about the investment that we are making here, it can have long-term ramifications.

The one thing that I am interested in and our party has always had a genuine concern about is, when the government puts money out, we certainly want to get something back. I am always worried that when they are having a program, it might be just to cover more administration or the costs of more overhead of already existing staff and people in this increasingly growing bureaucracy that is the Ontario Liberal government.

I would hope that when the minister is putting out $276,000, a large proportion of it -- in fact all of it -- will go to the sources that really need the help, and it is not just added to the bureaucracy that is the David Peterson government. In other words, there has to be some monitoring of the cost, and it is not just a matter of saying, “Hey, here is some money,” and throw it against the wall and think it is going to do something. There has to be some supervision to make sure that this is not just window-dressing or some way in which you are continuing to support the bureaucracy that you already have.

I think there is an awful lot more that needs to be done in the form of educating people who are coming into our country so that they become Canadians first. There has to be a real emphasis here that we in Ontario are not the only province, that we are one of a group of provinces that make up this Confederation, so the sooner we begin to encourage people to take an active role in government, in politics and in the community so that they become integrated into what is Canada and Ontario, the better we will be.

I would be glad to give the honourable minister commendation if he could increase his efforts to make this a society in which we increase the respect we have for one another, so that those new people coming into this province will have a sense of really being part of one of the most beautiful places there is to live in the world. I think the minister is in a position to give that kind of leadership. This $276,000 can lead towards that end. Let’s just hope that it really is used in the way the minister has described it now and not frittered away on some of the bureaucratic concerns that seem to be taking so much of the taxpayers’ money right now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

Mr. B. Rae: I know that charges were laid today -- at least I understand that they were laid today -- with respect to the death of Wade Lawson. I might have expected the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to make a statement in that regard, simply informing the House officially of that fact.

But I do have a question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will no doubt know that I cannot ask and she cannot answer questions dealing with the particular tragic death of Wade Lawson, and I do not intend to put her in that position. I do want to get to the bottom of this question of the use of hollow-point bullets -- what she knows about it and how widespread the use of hollow-point bullets has been across the province.

Yesterday I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) whether or not he had been able to ascertain from the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) what was the nature of the report or study done for him about the use of hollow-point bullets across the province when he was Solicitor General. I would now like to ask this Solicitor General whether she has spoken to her colleague from Kingston in order to find out exactly what information there is about the current use and past use of hollow-point bullets in the province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Police Act is very clear in its description of what is and what is not permitted by way of both bullets and guns.

Since I became Solicitor General, I have assumed that this was being 100 percent obeyed. It turns out that there was some discussion some years ago around the issue because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did indeed change its regulations and allowed hollow-point bullets. Therefore, it was sent to the usual committee that looks at armaments; I know as a lawyer the member would know of its existence.

They appointed a subcommittee which was going to examine this along with other matters. This subcommittee has not met, as far as I can gather, certainly has made no report and has made no recommendations yet that I am aware of, although I do understand that individuals who sit on this committee have expressed some individual points of view. The committee has made no recommendations and has not yet reported even to the committee to which it reports, let alone to the ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister did not answer my question, which is not novel, but it nevertheless deserves comment. I asked her a very specific question. Let me try again.

On Wednesday, December 28, the member for Kingston and The Islands said -- and so far as I am aware he has not written to the paper or refuted what he is quoted as saying in the Toronto Star: “The former Solicitor General, now MPP for Kingston and The Islands, said finding out the banned bullets were used ‘in regular police work and in target practice’ bothered him. ‘These bullets do quite a number on a person.’” The damage that is caused to a person who is hit by a hollow-point bullet is substantially greater, graver and more serious than the damage that is done by a regular .38-calibre bullet.

I would like to ask the minister: Has she spoken with her colleague when he says, as a former Solicitor General, that finding out the banned bullets were used in regular police work and in target practice bothered him? What was he talking about? How did he know those bullets were in fact being used? Why was a blind eye being turned to the use of those bullets? Those are very simple questions.

Mr. Speaker: It seemed like quite a number of questions.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, the bullets under question do more damage and for this reason the Police Act specifically states the kind of bullets that can be used, and this does not include that particular type of bullet. I do not think there is any argument with that.

The minute I found out there was even any speculation about whether they were being used, I immediately sent out a directive to reinform all police chiefs that they were not to be used, that the regulations specifically said they were not to be used. Because there had been some speculation as to whether they in fact were on occasion used, I asked for a report back so that I might be reassured that indeed this law is being obeyed as it should be obeyed. As soon as I have this report ready, I will submit it to the House.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can answer this question. She herself refers to speculation about the use of this bullet. Can she tell us what speculation she is referring to?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I refer to the

article the member read. That is the only speculation I have on this. I prefer to deal with facts, with the officials of my ministry, and will continue to do so.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I understand from his office that he is going to be delayed for a little while, so l will stand down my second leader’s question.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to stand down the question?

Agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is for the Solicitor General with respect to the same matter that has just been discussed. Would the Solicitor General confirm in the House that there has been an advisory body of the Ontario Police Commission studying the use of the hollow-point bulletin this province for the past two years?

Hon. Mrs. Smlth: There is indeed a committee that examines these matters, as the member knows, on a regular basis. It is always a matter, one might say, of negotiation and speculation between police forces as to which is the appropriate weaponry for them to be allowed to use.

It was in fact because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had re-examined this issue that it became one which was referred to the committee for discussion, as I already stated. The committee itself then referred it to a subcommittee, which had not reported back during my term of office, and I was not myself aware of the fact that this was being considered. I knew what the regulations stated and assumed that these regulations were not being questioned.

Mr. Brandt: The use of the hollow-point bullet in this province is illegal. It is very clearly pointed out in the regulations that this type of ammunition should not be used; the minister has stated that in the House.

Some two years ago, the former Solicitor General indicated that he was aware of the use of the hollow-point bullet in Ontario. Will the minister confirm in this House today that she has evidence at her disposal at the moment -- information, not speculation -- that this particular bullet has been used by some police forces over the course of the past two years since the revelations were provided by the former Solicitor General?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, I have no such information.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister has no information with respect to the use of these bullets, she did in fact indicate that she issued a directive to all police forces to cease and desist any use of these bullets.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, no, no.

Mr. Brandt: Well, the minister can clarify that. My understanding was that the minister issued a directive on this particular question indicating that the bullets were not to be used.

Could the minister confirm again that, as a result of two years of study, as a result of this question having been confirmed in the words of the former Solicitor General that he was aware this bullet was being used in some circumstances, she has no knowledge whatever -- if that is what she is telling the House, then we have to take her at her word -- that this particular ammunition was not being used by any police forces, illegally, in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If the member looks, he will see clearly that I sent out a directive reminding them that they were illegal and were not to be used. This is reminding them of a fact that is in the police regulations. There is no reason I can think of that I would be particularly rushing back a report which is recommending their use. I had not received such a report, and until I get such a report, I do not have to consider it. I was quite satisfied with the regulations as they existed, and that was the law.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister knew what was going on in her ministry, and I am sure that as the days unfold we will find out more about this question –

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

HOME CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is just going for a walk in another direction, and it is with respect to the ongoing matter of concern we have on this side of the House with respect to the funding for the Red Cross.

Yesterday, and I want to quote him accurately, the minister responded to a question by saying: “I can tell him that homemaker services will continue to be offered. What I cannot tell him is who will be offering them.” The minister went on to say that other homemaking services were available to take over from the Red Cross.

Since a very large part of the activity of Red Cross homemaker services is in rural areas, and since in those rural areas there are very few alternative services, would the minister indicate to the House today who he thinks is going to provide the service that is now being provided by the Red Cross in Ontario?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is waiting to respond.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would appreciate the opportunity to clearly say that we are not looking forward to the demise of the Red Cross. I believe in my answer yesterday I clearly indicated that the negotiations were ongoing and that the review within the government itself was ongoing to try to help the Red Cross resolve its particular deficit. Let me make that very clear. No decision has been made.

The second point that I made yesterday, and I would repeat today, was that our responsibility as a ministry is to see to it that the service itself is available. We cannot guarantee in any community who is going to deliver that service, and it may or may not be the Red Cross. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that across Ontario in many communities there are other agencies delivering that service. In some communities it is the Red Cross and others. In some other communities it is other agencies and not the Red Cross at all.

There are other agencies across the province which are delivering that service and could be called upon to go into various areas and to pick up that service if -- and let me underline that big “if” -- the Red Cross is not able to manage its deficit.

Mr. Brandt: Let’s look at some of the facts with respect to the Red Cross. Ninety per cent of all of the demand for homemaker services that are given by the Red Cross are generated by the government. The government is the one that provides it with the people, the client group, if you will, which need to be serviced. There are now 180,000 seniors who receive a homemaker service from the Red Cross.

My understanding is that the minister is not prepared to provide funding for the $1.1-million shortfall in the Red Cross’s operating administrative deficit because he is concerned that it does not know what its deficit is going to be next year, and this may be an ongoing problem. I would suggest to the minister, in fairness to the Red Cross, that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the minister himself do not know what his operating deficit is going to be next year either. Why will he not do the right thing for 180,000 seniors in this province and indicate clearly to the Red Cross that he is prepared to provide $1.1 million in funding?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was not so much the fact that we did not know what its deficit was going to be. As a matter of fact, in response to a question from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), I said that the Red Cross had already indicated to us directly that while its deficit for the current fiscal year would be in the $1-million range, it was projecting a deficit in excess of $3 million for next fiscal year, and even it could not tell us what it would be for the subsequent year.

It was in that context that I said it was difficult for us to make a decision to resolve this year’s $1-million deficit, because obviously that does not solve the problem, just its deficit alone, which is for the administrative operation of the service.

The other side of the coin is that the big problem which has been brought to our attention for the last five or six months is the direct wages being paid to the homemakers themselves. As the honourable member is aware, they are in the range of $5 or $6 an hour. Because of that, all of the agencies delivering this service are telling us that there is such a turnover of direct-service workers that they have a big problem: they do not know whether they are going to be able to continue. Just solving the deficit problem for this year does not solve the problem at all.

It just puts it off in terms of what the subsequent deficit is going to be and how we are going to deal with the question of the direct wages of the workers themselves.

Mr. Brandt: Not providing the Red Cross with $1.1 million jeopardizes the service to 180,000 seniors. I am sure the minister will agree with that statement.

Let me then ask the minister very clearly: If he is saying that he cannot provide the $1.1 million because there may be an ongoing and perhaps escalating operating deficit to the Red Cross, will the minister state very clearly that in his opinion, if this is what he is saying, the per client cost of providing homemaker services by the Red Cross is too high? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two different kinds of costs that we as a ministry have to be aware of. The first one is the hourly rate that we pay to the agency to run its own administration, to pay the hourly rate to the workers themselves. The second one is the hourly rate to the worker. There are some agencies that require a higher rate to the agency itself; even though they are not paying the worker any more, their administration costs are higher. That answers the question in a kind of backhanded way.

Mr. Brandt: What about the Red Cross?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Red Cross is one of the higher-cost agencies, yes.

Mr. Brandt: Because it operates in rural areas.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is only part of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CANRON INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware of the request by the mayor of Hamilton and the regional chairman, who have forwarded to him a resolution concerning the problems that may affect the Canron plant with 185 employees in Hamilton due to changes in the Hydro regulations. I am wondering if he can tell us if he has arranged a meeting with the Hamilton authorities yet, as per their request, and if he can give us the date of that meeting.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I am aware of the Canron situation, which has been brought to my attention. Ontario Hydro, in introducing time-of-use rates for industrial use across the province of Ontario, made this option available to each of the local electrical utilities. Hamilton Hydro opted in favour of this. Perhaps Hamilton Hydro and/or the mayor have been in touch with my office -- I believe they have been -- but I am not aware of a specific meeting having been set up at this point.

Mr. Mackenzie: I understand from the correspondence I have that they have requested a meeting with the minister in his office. I think the concern is the 185 employees in that plant, which is in the ingot mould division. It is a cut-throat business at best, and it is very likely that this plant will go under and go under very quickly if there is not some agreement reached. I think all of the options at least have to be explored, and I would request that the minister give some urgency to a meeting with the Hamilton officials over this plant.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I will undertake to look into this matter to see if we can find a resolution to it. I might re-emphasize that Hamilton Hydro is primarily the entity that has the responsibility for setting the rates to Canron, and I appreciate that over the years Canron has had a preferred rate treatment given to it by Hamilton Hydro, and this complicates the matter. But I do appreciate what the honourable member has said in so far as it affects 185 employees; I will undertake to look into this.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition may wish to ask his second question to the Premier.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: Of all the commitments made by the government in the last election, the promise the Premier made that the compromise which had been worked out in this House on Sunday shopping prior to the 1987 election, the promise that he made to the people in August that that compromise would be maintained and would be supported by him, was an important commitment to a great many groups across this province, as the Premier well knows.

He broke that promise. He decided to bring in very different legislation from the legislation contemplated by him, according to what he told the public in the course of an election campaign. He now has opposition from virtually many, many religious groups across the province, 99 per cent of the municipalities that are members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the small and many large businesses across the province.

I would like to ask the Premier: Rather than force through this legislation by using closure, as he said outside the House yesterday, why not convene a meeting of the coalition that is opposed to his bill, as well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and for the first time actually sit down with them and discuss what kind of workable compromise could be reached which would make the use of closure in this House unnecessary?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is quite obvious to me that my honourable friend would like this government to use closure.

Mr. Laughren: Is that what you said?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If not him, certainly the leader of the third party is virtually inviting that.

I respect my honourable friend’s point of view on this matter, but he has consciously undertaken to take endless time discussing this matter, 55 or 60 days in committee, wasting time. He may feel that is appropriate in the circumstances.

I respect the fact that he disagrees with this. He disagrees with many things. As a matter of fact, he disagrees with everything the government does, except the good things, and he wants to take credit for them. I understand that, but I think there has been endless discussion with virtually all groups concerned. They have met privately. They have met publicly. They have met before the committee. All the views are known on this matter.

We came to the conclusion that the act was unenforceable, that the bill that has been put forward in this House is a sensible one. It works in other provinces extremely well. There is no obligation on any community to open, should it not desire to do so. If the people of Sault Ste. Marie want to stay open, why should they be prevented from so doing?

Mr. Brandt: They can do that under present legislation.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Some of my honourable friend’s own members have indicated a high comfort level with the idea of letting Pembroke do something different from Kingston. Why would we not, in a land mass this size?

We think it is a sensible and sensitive solution that makes common sense. I know that common sense does not always fly in this House with the opposition, but I invite them again to think about it and, just perhaps, they will come to the conclusion that this bill makes sense.

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to say to the Premier that, as Leader of the Opposition, I do not approve or condone the use of closure by this government to get its legislation through. I want him to know that.

The second thing I want to say, by way of question, is simply the short answer to my suggestion, a very practical and constructive suggestion; that is, if he was interested in resolving what I think any objective observer would see as an impasse between his approach and the approach that is favoured by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and by all the members of the coalition that I have referred to -- and I am not referring to members or affiliates of the New Democratic Party, though of course the trade unions involved are opposed -- that he recognize that, sure, he has a big majority and, sure, he can abuse that majority any way he chooses, but sometimes it makes sense to listen to the people on the other side, particularly when he himself changed his mind and broke his promise, the very specific promise he made to the people of the province back in 1987.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend refers to the majority on this side and, indeed, that side of the House, and in fact he is right.

One of the things we try very hard to do is to be sensitive to the desires and wishes of the opposition. It is inevitable, in our processes, that there are differences of opinion. As a matter of fact, I get the impression sometimes that the opposition manufactures differences of opinion just to fulfil its role in opposition. At least, I used to do that, so I understand if he wants to do that. Let me say that to my honourable friend.

I think he is quite right that we have to be very sensitive, sitting, as we do, with a majority. But may I say at the same time that a minority party has to be sensitive of its role as well. I find situations here when people sitting in minority parties think that they are responsible for the government, that their wisdom should prevail in all cases. It is important that both of us are sensitive to each other.

After 55 days of debate and endless committee hearings, this government has shown forbearance, understanding and a willingness to cooperate and work with the minority in this House. But I say at the same time, just because of pique or some other reason or disagreement with the government, which is responsible for the legislation of the day, he wants to stand up and drag this thing out for ever -- I think, frankly, he is pushing this to the limits of his responsibility.

Mr. B. Rae: I was delighted to hear the admission of the leader of the Liberal Party that for years he manufactured differences of opinion with the Tory party, which was then in government. This confirms a theory that I have held about the two parties for many years, and I am glad to hear it out of his own mouth.

The difference of opinion that we have is not the difference of opinion between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party. That is not the issue here.

I am suggesting not that he meet with me or with the leader of the third party to resolve this difference -- I gave up on that idea a long time ago; what I am suggesting is that he meet with those groups who represent citizens of this province who are not Liberals necessarily, who are not New Democrats necessarily, who are not Conservatives necessarily, but who are, in very substantial numbers, people who have a profound disagreement with the fact the Premier broke his promise in 1987, that he said something in order to get people’s votes in 1987 and then said “Let’s do the exact opposite” after the election.

All I am asking him to do is to sit down and meet with them before he makes the decision to ram through this legislation by means of the closure mechanism which he himself has referred to outside this place. He can just meet with them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have observed to my friend opposite that the last socialist leader who had comments with respect to the two-party system in this country lived to regret it. I just want to remind him of that little piece of recent history.

Let me say that my friend uses inflated rhetoric about “ramming through.” Surely there has been no government that has been more patient in discussing this issue, as with many other issues. We have great respect for the rights and responsibilities of the opposition, having laboured there so long ourselves.

He has had an opportunity to put his views there, in this House. I recognize there are many people who disagree with this legislation. I also recognize that there are many people who do agree with it. Why does he not meet with the people who agree with it?

Mr. Philip: Name them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are numerous people who think it is a very sensible approach to the matter and I say to my friend that I think he has chosen to dig in his heels on an issue that is not appropriate. It works very well in other provinces and when people come to realize this they will be extremely comfortable with it.

He can look at what is happening in British Columbia and in Alberta. Even Saskatchewan is following along in this regard. It recognizes the diversity of the provinces and the differences, and I think it is a sensible and sensitive way to proceed in this matter.

So I say to my friend, there is no ramming through. We know the views of the people who disagree with us, just as people disagree with almost everything we do. We understand that as well. But we have a responsibility to be as sensitive as we can, to govern, and he has a responsibility in this Legislature to not endlessly obstruct. As far as I am concerned, the opposition members are the ones who are obstructing; it is not us ramming anything through.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. It has been noted in the press recently that he intends to establish a provincial garbage authority. We have not been informed in this House as to what action is being taken, or is going to be taken, by his deputy minister, Mr. Church, and the office of the greater Toronto area, on this matter.

What is the status of this new provincial body? What is the role of Mr. Church? When can we expect a formal announcement on how the Premier plans to deal with this garbage crisis in Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Approximately six months to a year ago, we established a new deputy minister, Mr. Church, responsible for what we refer to internally as the GTA, the greater Toronto area. This was in response to a number of problems with which I am sure my honourable friend would be familiar, in respect to waste disposal transportation, and a variety of other issues that cut across the traditional regional and municipal boundaries.

I am sure my honourable friend will agree with me that in many ways, they are artificial constructs. The best results in the future will be achieved by co-operation, particularly in this extremely high-growth area around Toronto.

Mr. Church’s responsibilities are to bring together new forms of co-operation in dealing with the regions, the municipalities and the provincial government, with respect to a wide number of issues. I can tell the honourable member that he has met extensively with the regions, municipalities in a variety of areas and we are bringing together new dialogues on issues of transportation, housing, waste disposal and other things.

I am not in the position -- there are discussions going on -- no question about it -- with respect to taking a more co-ordinated approach to waste disposal; historically that is something that is the region’s responsibility. Those discussions are ongoing. But as I am sure my honourable friend would agree, it is important that a high degree of consultation go on -- we are not trying to catch any of the regions by surprise -- and that they work with them in a co-operative way.

I am not in a position to give my friend a specific announcement about the nature or structure of a waste disposal facility or corporation, but discussions are going on along those lines. When we have something specific I will share it with my honourable friend.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier is undoubtedly aware of the scathing articles that recently appeared on Toronto in the United States. The fact is that it is long overdue for action to be taken by his government in dealing with the crisis that we now have with waste disposal -- as well as a number of other problems, for that matter -- in the Metro Toronto area.

Which regional municipalities is he dealing with and negotiating with in trying to resolve this crisis that we have with garbage? What is the mandate for this new authority, or is it just another one of his all-talk-and-no-action proposals? I would like to know specifically what it is he hopes to achieve out of all these talks and conversations that he and Mr. Church might be having.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not a question of my conversations with Mr. Church. It is a question of Mr. Church’s conversations with a number of the regions, and trying to be as helpful as we possibly can in the short term as well as in the long term in developing approaches to solving the waste disposal problems. As the member knows, in the greater Toronto area some regions are under far more pressure in the short term than are others. So the immediacy of the problem is more serious in some eases than in others. Obviously, that is a question of landfill; it is a question of recycling.

I can tell the member that the minister has been very aggressive in that area and I can say with some pride that we have one of the leading programs in North America with respect to reducing the quantity of landfill. We are taking a multiplicity of approaches. My honourable friend asked me for the terms of reference, specifically of the corporation. There has not, at this point, been a corporation formed. That may or may not come out of it, but it is going to be done on a co-operative basis with the regions. It is their legal responsibility, as my honourable friend knows, but we are here to play a co-ordinating, facilitating and helpful role with those regions that want to work with us.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. Offer: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There is a wetlands complex referred to as the Creditview bog in my riding. I have posed a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on another occasion dealing with this issue. However, this wetland is on property which is the subject of preliminary subdivision agreement approval. There has been concern raised about safeguarding the bog because of its ecological value. I ask the question of the Minister of the Environment because I understand that he has received communication from the parties concerned. Could the minister share with me his understanding of this situation surrounding the Creditview bog?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware of the situation regarding the Creditview bog and some of the conflicting points of view that are associated with it. I have received a number of letters which have been expressing concern over the potential development of this bog and requesting its preservation. I understand that there is a petition which has been signed by some 10,000 individuals who have in fact supported the preservation of that particular bog. I understand, as well, that there is a question over the specific classification of this wetland under the Ministry of Natural Resources wetlands evaluation system.

I have also received -- I can tell the member -- requests for designation of the Creditview bog under the Environmental Assessment Act. Those are the circumstances which surround this and the kinds of communication which I have received, which have been in fact in writing and, in addition to that, the information that the member has provided to me and some considerable coverage which has been allocated to this particular situation through the news media.

Mr. Offer: Based on the request for accreditation under the Environmental Assessment Act, could the minister please inform me as to the processes which are used and involved with respect to this very important process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I certainly can, and I would think a number of members of the House would be interested in this particular process. The request for designation is in fact under review by the environmental assessment branch of the Ministry of the Environment at the present. As members may be aware, the environmental assessment branch gathers all available information on the case and contacts some of the parties which have expressed an interest.

They have been in contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources, for instance, which is responsible for the wetlands of Ontario. Based on this review of all the various people with whom we make contact, the branch makes a recommendation to me. If a project is designated under the Environmental Assessment Act and the proponent develops an environmental assessment document which is reviewed by the government agencies and, of course, by the public at large, based on the environmental assessment document and the government review, a member of the public can request a hearing and then, of course, the hearing officers determine whether the proposal is rejected or accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Just so the question period does not get bogged down, new question, the member for Cambridge.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Premier. The consumers of Ontario -- the driving public -- are being ripped off because the Premier is pandering to his big-business friends. With the recommendation of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board of a 12.5 per cent profit on investment, auto insurers will have a guaranteed profit margin far in excess of the rate of inflation. Instead of protecting consumers, the Premier has in fact set up a mechanism whereby this government has become a willing ally and partner in the maximization of guaranteed profits.

Will the Premier admit that his government’s intervention in the insurance field is one that favours the insurance industry at the expense of the driving public, the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister will handle that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. This question about the issue of the return on equity has been asked several times. Of course, it is unfortunate that he continues to misunderstand and in fact tries to communicate to the public of Ontario that misunderstanding. It is not that way at all.

The idea of looking at a return-on-investment figure at all was merely to provide the basis on which some projections for a rate-setting structure could be brought before the board for hearing. There was no guarantee provided by the decision of that part of the hearing process. The honourable member knows that, in fact his critic knows that, and in fact his leader knows that, because it is very clearly indicated that there was no guarantee provided by the decision that was presented late last year.

The public of this province for the first time ever, and maybe it will be the first time in most of the jurisdictions in North America, has a chance to fully explore the manner in which rates are established for auto insurance premiums.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems to me that auto insurance premiums being well understood, the components of which they are established and the makeup of the expenses –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Farnan: It is a matter of record that the insurance industry made significant financial contributions to the Liberal Party during the 1987 provincial election campaign. Most members of this House will be familiar with this piece of literature produced by the Ontario private automobile insurance industry and mailed to every home in every riding in which a New Democrat was perceived to have a chance of victory.

Will the minister admit that the proposed gouging of the drivers of Ontario is simply a sacrificial offering at the insurance altar of retribution and that in making this offering, the Liberals are merely repaying their debt to their big-business friends who financed their election victory?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That bit of rhetoric, I am afraid, really takes the cake. That is nonsense.

I can tell the honourable member and the people of the province that for the first time ever, there is a forum in which the consumers can receive the information that is the background on which the premiums for auto insurance in Ontario are established. There is a very full and open hearing. There is an examination of the material that is brought, not only by the people who are making reports to the board but also by those companies that say they need specific increases.

The gentleman from Cambridge indicates there is a guaranteed profit. Nothing could be further from the truth. This board is examining exactly what goes into setting up rates for auto insurance within the province. The people who work in all of those companies must do a series of marketing techniques. They have to do the administrative work, all the stuff that a competitive marketplace drives them to do so that they can establish some kind of return on their equity.

There is no guarantee that has been written into this for anybody. They have to work at it. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the public is well served by an open process that will allow them to be armed when they go to the --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLICE PURSUIT

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Solicitor General. On May 20, 1987, 17-year-old Tracey Cook died in the arms of her mother as a result of a crash following a high-speed police chase in Midland. Tracey Cook was a passenger in the car driven by her mother when it was hit from behind at the intersection of a four-lane highway and a street in Midland. This vehicle was struck by another vehicle fleeing from a Midland police cruiser after Mrs. Cook was forced to stop at the intersection by a second police car that was blocking her way.

Since the death of Tracey Cook occurred during a high-speed police chase, will the Solicitor General call for an immediate inquest into this troubled matter?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This matter was drawn to my attention and I am making some inquiries, but as my understanding of it goes, the legal case is complicated at this point and an inquest cannot be called without stopping the investigation. I do not wish to be categorical on this at this point in time.

Mr. McLean: It is customary to expect at least an ounce of compassion in a tragic situation such as this, where a completely innocent family has been most unfortunately victimized. The Cook family has been waiting patiently for nearly two years and is still waiting for answers and for justice concerning the death of their daughter. The entire issue of high-speed chases will not go away, and it is simply not fair to fight this issue on the backs of innocent families.

I ask the Solicitor General, why will she not have a complete inquiry into this matter? The family has asked for help in this case. The two ministries, apparently, according to the Cook family, are ignoring them. Why will she not take some action?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have said, I will try to expedite the inquiry into this matter, but as long as it is being inquired into with any possibility of charges of any sort, then it would not be appropriate to hold an inquest.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I have received several phone calls and comments about trucks speeding on Highway 401. Personal observation would indicate that there are a few trucks that speed.

Scott Talbott of Laidlaw Transport of Woodstock says Laidlaw trucks run at 90 kilometres an hour. By dropping back from 100 to 90 kilometres, they save approximately $6,000 on fuel for each truck, which runs approximately 150,000 kilometres a year. Together with their lights-on policy, they have cut their accident rate by 17 per cent and saved $1.5 million a year on insurance. They have a fleet of 800 trucks. Should there be a different speed for trucks compared to other motor vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the question of the member for Oxford and his long-standing interest in public safety, and in highway safety in particular.

Way back in this province, and I think in other jurisdictions, certainly in jurisdictions in Canada, there was a variable within speed limits, but most recent studies on highways in North America indicate that a variance between types of vehicles increases the rate and often the severity of the accidents. We are not contemplating any kind of variance between one vehicle type and another in Ontario.

Mr. Tatham: Tach cards are used by many trucking companies for record purposes. There is some suggestion that tach cards would be of assistance to a trucker in case of legal matters. My question is, should transport trucks be equipped with tach cards?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the equipment the member is referring to is analogous to the black box common to aircraft. The instruments are technically able to monitor the movements of the vehicle itself and in many eases the actions of the driver on the road. My understanding is that about 30 per cent of the trucking industry currently uses this, if I can call it, black box. We are very supportive, in the interests of public safety and highway safety, in seeing greater use of that kind of technology.

WATER BOMBERS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Could the minister explain why and how many of the CL-215 water bombers, which are worth about $7.5 million each according to Lou Lingenfelter, director of the aviation and fire management centre, are parked outside the hangar in Sault Ste. Marie in the winter weather and cold because the hangar is too small to accommodate the aircraft he has purchased?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There is a very good reason for that. We felt it was imperative in Ontario that we buy enough water bombers to fight the fires rather than --

Mr. Wildman: But not to protect them against the winter.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Would the member just stop for a minute while I explain.

We thought it was imperative that we purchase water bombers to fight fires before we built hangars to house them, and that is the reason they are outside.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not aware that because they cannot be accommodated in the hangar in Sault Ste. Marie, they also cannot be serviced there? If they cannot be serviced, they may not be available for use to fight fires if the fire season were to start earlier next spring than might originally have been expected.

Why is the minister having to use privately owned, inadequate hangars for the servicing of these aircraft, with all the risks that entails for fire protection? Why did the government not approve the approximately $4-million allocation of funds required in 1986 to build an adequate hangar facility in Sault Ste. Marie to accommodate these aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, the honourable member brings to the attention of the House the fact that we do not have enough hangar space for nine CL-215 water bombers, the reason being as I described initially, that we saw putting the money in the bombers as the first and highest priority. That is not to say we do not have plans for the future not only to consider building more hangar space ourselves, but also at this time we are looking for options where there may be other people who will provide us with hangar facilities more cheaply than we can build new hangars. We have not been without our people out there examining every alternative.

I will make this comment to the member: When the fire season commences, and it does happen every year regardless, we will have all of our CL-215s in the air, fighting the fires and getting the reputation throughout the rest of Canada and everywhere else that we have the best firefighting forces in the world.

INNOVATION CENTRE

Mr. Sterling: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding the closing of the innovation centre at the University of Ottawa, in that this centre has received thousands of inquiries a year and has helped hundreds of inventors by providing advice support, and therefore must be considered one of the most successful programs of the ministry. What information, research, statistics, logic has the minister used as a basis for closing down this centre in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members will know that there were 22 innovation centres, made up of nine at universities and 13 at community colleges. Built into the legislation that provided for them was a sunset review. That sunset review has taken place. We have had consultants’ reports that evaluated them. It was decided the money could be spent with greater effect through other programs that are in place. As a result, the decision was made to inform the various innovation centres that after their term was up, which is now going to be the end of the month, they were going to be wound down.

Mr. Sterling: The minister says he bases his closure on the report of Jim McPherson, who I believe was the consultant. We would like to have an opportunity to look at that report. We have had to apply for it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It cost the taxpayer, I understand, something like $50,000. It is our understanding that in that report, the University of Ottawa innovation centre was deemed to be very successful.

Many of the innovation centres had different mandates. Some dealt with the universities alone, some dealt with universities and the community, and some dealt with the community alone. In fact, the University of Ottawa innovation centre dealt with the community alone.

In view of the fact the ministry has diddled away money to Wyda Systems, Abe Schwartz and other kinds of groups in the millions of dollars, why has the minister closed a successful innovation centre spending $100,000 a year that is helping many small businessmen? The minister has closed the Ontario Centre for Microelectronics in Ottawa. He has closed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has completed his speech.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has been quick to catalogue the things we have closed and has neglected to catalogue any of the things we have opened under the Premier’s Council; under the technology fund. When you consider that under the innovation centres we were providing $100,000 in matching funds, with the institution providing the other $100,000, they do have opportunities to continue these programs if they are successful.

In the meantime, we have programs in place that are very effective. It was a decision made after careful consideration and I can tell members that it was not done on a whim. It was done after due consideration, after evaluating all the programs that were in place. It was decided we could get a better return on our investment through other programs that are in place.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The blue box recycling program has come to most parts of Metropolitan Toronto and I must commend the minister on his consistent efforts to assist municipalities in establishing their recycling programs. Indeed, as a former member of Scarborough and Metropolitan Toronto councils, I was often frustrated in attempts to get these councils to move expeditiously in this matter.

While blue box recycling is an important step forward in conserving resources and reducing the amount of garbage that goes to landfills, it is obviously not the complete answer to our disposal problem. Could the minister outline further initiatives his ministry will be taking to move beyond the present blue box program?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I do not think we should diminish the importance of the blue box program itself. I am very pleased that at this point in time I believe we have 1.2 million households in Ontario that are on the blue box program. That is an effort other jurisdictions would like to duplicate. I point out as well that in the previous year, 1988, some 750,000 blue boxes were distributed in Ontario. I think that compares to zero in the specific year of 1984, which has some significance to the leader of the third party.

The member is quite correct in assuming that while the blue box program is exceedingly important, we have to go far beyond that. In that connection, I have had meetings, as have officials of my ministry, with representatives of key industrial organizations such as the Society for Plastics Engineers, the Packaging Association of Canada, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada and the newspaper association. All that is designed to bring other aspects of recycling on stream, such as going into apartment buildings, which I think is very significant, and composting, which individual farmers have done for a number of years.

[Applause]

Mr. Faubert: I note the applause from both sides of the House for the minister’s response.

Now that we are into the winter season and the time for raking leaves is long past, I still recall the familiar picture of large numbers of boxes and bags of leaves put out for collection. Surely leaves constitute large bulk in the refuse stream at that time of the year. Are there any programs presently being developed to deal with this kind of refuse?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Again, that represents one of the areas where we can say there has been a downfall in many years gone by and in many jurisdictions. There is absolutely no excuse for not composting leaves in Ontario. Recognizing this, we are developing these composting guidelines so they can be effectively implemented in Ontario.

We are supporting composting initiatives in the city of Guelph, for instance, which is very progressive in this area, and of course in Metropolitan Toronto. These will be expanded throughout Ontario. I can inform members of the House -- they may be surprised by this -- that North York, Etobicoke, Cambridge and Guelph are some of the municipalities in Ontario which have developed recycling programs in the form of composting of leaves. It is not only an opportunity to divert them from the landfill sites themselves; it is also an opportunity to have them decompose and provide the kind of fertilizer that is required for gardens, lawns and all kinds of recreational initiatives in this province.

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have been troubled by the fact that it would appear at first blush that we are not able to ask questions directly of the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) with respect to the statement he made in the Toronto Star on December 28, 1988. If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this: There are two possibilities and I want to put both of them to the government.

The first possibility would be that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) would exercise his discretion, and the House would comply, in allowing the member for Kingston and The Islands to explain what information he had when he was Solicitor General with respect to the use of illegal bullets and to explain how it is that he came to make the statement he did on December 28.

I might refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 29(h), which states, “Parliamentary assistants may answer for their ministers only when authorized by the Premier.” The member for Kingston and The Islands is a parliamentary assistant. He is admittedly the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and not to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith).

The first request I would make of the Premier is whether he is prepared to authorize by means of exercising his discretion the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands, to make a statement to this House upon which he can be questioned in this House with respect to his responsibilities. If the Premier is not prepared to do that, then I have a motion which I would like to put with respect to the referral of this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Harris: Briefly, as unanimous consent is not required for what has been brought forward by the leader of the official opposition -- at least I do not think unanimous consent is required, particularly for option two -- let me indicate on behalf of our party that we support both proposals put forward by the leader of the official opposition.

I suggest that the matter might be cleared up a little sooner and a little more quickly and expeditiously -- and that would certainly be the wish of our party, and I think it ought to be the wish of the Premier -- if he would allow the former Solicitor General to answer for his knowledge in this matter. Certainly there is a lot of confusion among members of this House and among the public, and it might put that matter to rest much sooner.

I just wanted to indicate on behalf of our party that we would support either one of the two options the Premier might choose to follow.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It seems to me that there are time-honoured traditions in this House that there is one minister and the one minister speaks on matters of responsibility. How far back does this go? Do we bring back former ministers of the crown? The answer is a very clear no. In my view, it would be a very serious violation of the traditions of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) did refer to a standing order. Of course, I do not believe the request made would by any means come under that particular standing order; therefore, I do not consider it a regular point of order.

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Should I ask for unanimous consent then that the member be allowed to make a statement with regard to what he said on December 28?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Mr. B. Rae: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did refer you to the fact that if I was not successful in convincing the Premier of the simple justice of the original request, I would make a motion. If I may, I want to make a motion that the matter of statements made by the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands, in the Toronto Star on December 28, 1988, be referred to the standing committee on administration on justice.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. I understand that in the first point of order the Leader of the Opposition made he did state that he would be trying to place a motion before the House. I did rule that the point of order was not a point of order. The only way that a motion could be placed now would be by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is not unanimous consent.

PETITION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 60 employees of Zimmer of Canada Ltd. in Mississauga. It reads in part as follows:

“We, the undersigned Ontario residents and taxpayers, wish to add our voices to the many other Ontarians who are concerned about the potential 35 to 40 per cent increases in auto insurance premiums. A 40 per cent increase is not anything like the ‘cap on insurance premiums’ that you promised in the last election campaign!”

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that in the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be considered following the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, during the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet, I indicated that several ministries were denying information to the Ombudsman on the advice of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and that the rationale used was that the investigations were in violation of the freedom-of-information legislation. What I meant to say was that the ministries were using instead their privilege under orders-in-council rules, and I simply want to correct my own record.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, moved second reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 124, the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988.

The amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act proposed by this bill are designed to assist both custodial and noncustodial parents to enforce access rights and obligations.

The bill seeks to achieve a number of what I may say are worthy goals: first, to minimize the use of children as pawns in disputes between their parents; second, to provide a speedy and inexpensive means by which access difficulties can be determined by the court, including guidelines for the determination of a wrongful denial of access; third, to emphasize that the best interests of children are met through ongoing opportunities to learn from both parents, as is each child’s right, and last, to provide the court with enforcement tools other than jail sentences and fines when enforcing access orders.

These alternatives include compensatory or makeup access, reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful denial of access or the wrongful failure to exercise it, supervision and, if both parties agree, mediation.

The bill also seeks to avoid the unfortunate circumstance which has arisen in three provinces, Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba, where wrongful denial of access has led to the courts ordering the suspension of child support until the access order is complied with.

The bill also addresses specifically this government’s concern about the domestic violence in families in Ontario. The bill proposes a means by which domestic violence would be drawn to the attention of the court on each and every application or motion concerning custody of or access to children. These remedies will only be available when the court concludes that such an order is in the child’s best interest.

We have a bill that recognizes and supports the rights of children. This bill was approved by the Federal-Provincial Committee on Family Law Policy at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in August 1988. That committee is chaired by the federal Department of Justice and made up of representatives of directors of the family law department of different ministries of the Attorney General in all provinces and territories.

In addition, this bill has been followed in its entirety in Newfoundland as well as in parts in the province of Manitoba; in Alberta this bill has also been considered in many of its most important aspects. The bill is in itself under serious consideration indeed in the country of Australia.

To reiterate, this is a bill that recognizes and supports the rights of the child, and I welcome the comments of all members of this House.

Mr. Hampton: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on this bill because there are a number of comments both general and specific that I would like to make on the bill, both on behalf of my party and on behalf of a number of interest groups, a number of concerned citizens who have spoken to me about the bill and have spoken to other members of our party and expressed their deep concerns about the legislation.

I think it is important to place all of this in context, so let me first go into a little of the history of this bill because I think the history is quite important.

The original bill introduced by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- and I gather it was some two years ago -- was entitled Bill 60 at the time. That bill provoked such opposition from so many groups that the government wisely saw fit to amend some of, or should I say most of, the bill because so many sections of the bill were found to be offensive.

I think it is only fair to delineate some of the groups that spoke out against the bill. For example, a submission was received by the Attorney General from the Canadian Bar Association’s family law

section of Ontario. It was a submission which -- I think it is fair to say -- condemned what the government was proposing to do with that bill.

As well, numerous responses were made and numerous submissions were received by the Attorney General and by the opposition parties from women’s groups: organizations and groups that represent battered women, that represent women who have been through serious custody and access fights. They all said to the government that the previous bill was offensive for a number of reasons and should be withdrawn.

The government in its wisdom -- I will give it credit for some wisdom here -- did not reintroduce the same bill. Bill 124 contains some significant amendments compared to the previous Bill 60.

However, as is our job, we spent a considerable amount of time conferring with a number of those organizations: the family law

section of the Canadian Bar Association, a number of women’s groups, father’s groups, parents generally who are concerned about questions of custody, concerned about the specific question of access, concerned about solving problems of access and concerned about enforcing appropriate access orders and access agreements.

What we found, after conferring with many of these organizations, is that they do not find it adequate, even though the government has amended or changed significantly the former Bill 60 in its present form of Bill 124 and even though the government did listen somewhat. Most of the organizations that we spoke to still find this bill offensive in some respects, find it inadequate in some other respects and find that it really misses the mark. In fact, we had a number of organizations say to us that this bill will likely do more harm than good.

Let’s be clear. I think everyone out there agrees -- everyone who is concerned about this question, people who want to see the best welfare for their children, whether they be divorced or separated, whether they be grandparents or parents or whether they be aunts or uncles -- that there is a problem. I do not think there is any disagreement about that. Everyone agrees that there is a problem.

But there is fundamental disagreement and where I think the government has it wrong is that the organizations out there that we spoke to said it will be very difficult to find a solution to this problem by simply sending people back to court. What is involved here is a question that courts are not equipped to handle, are not organized to handle and really do not have the capability or the skills to deal with.

Really, in the majority of the access dispute cases, what you have had is a situation where the parents, the former spouses, have already been through, at the very least, the battle that surrounds a separation agreement, arguing back and forth as to who is going to get custody, arguing back and forth how much support there is going to be and arguing back and forth over property settlement. You are already dealing with a situation where people are in conflict.

In many cases, the conflict is more serious than just having gone through a separation agreement. In many cases it has also been a battle in the court. They have been back and forth on the witness stand. There have been applications and motions back and forth in court. In still many unfortunate cases -- I say unfortunate because it truly is unfortunate -- in the background of all of this, there may have been a situation of spousal abuse, child abuse or some kind of family violence.

In many cases where you have these types of access disputes, the factual background is not one which would easily lead to either trust and a co-operative or, shall we say, a compromising attitude or approach to solving these kinds of disputes.

The ground is already rough. Yet what does the government propose in the way of solving this or in the way of leading to a better solution? It proposes sending the couples who are already in dispute back into court so they can dispute some more. We think this approach is fundamentally wrong. We have said this previously. We have said it in question period and we have said it in other written statements to the minister and to the minister’s assistants.

We have said to the government that if it is really serious about dealing with access disputes, if it wants to help the situation, if it wants to provide a mechanism which will allow parents who are no longer spouses or who are separated, if it wants to provide a milieu where child access can be exercised in a reasonable manner which does not promote conflict, the way to do that is to fund agencies which already exist.

They are funded so far by the voluntary sector. They are funded by the churches. In some cases they are staffed by volunteers. Fund those types of agencies because that is a way that we can deal with access disputes; disputes which, as I have said, are often already very volatile. That is a way the government can deal with them in a manner which tends to diffuse the conflict, which tends to play down the conflict rather than throw it into court to enhance it and start it all over again.

In my practice as a private solicitor in family law, time and time again when I came away from family court I had to ask myself: Why do we have to go to this institution which in so many ways does not fit the needs of the people who are here? I know, from speaking to other people who practise much more family law than I, that with the current regime that exists in terms of settling family law disputes there is not a lot of happiness out there, there is not a lot of satisfaction.

Yet, to turn people back into the courts again and expect that we will somehow do better, that we will handle the situation better, that we will come away with something more positive, again I say we are headed down the wrong track.

There is another factor which plays into all of this. The government says and the Attorney General says in his opening statements -- I think I can quote him in the statements he made back in April 1988, when he introduced the bill -- he thought that the 10-day application period -- in other words, allowing an application to be brought in 10 days, allowing the application to be dealt with in terms of oral evidence -- would provide for quick hearings and quick determinations of the dispute.

I think we are forgetting something here. I think we are forgetting about the mechanism of many of our courts. For example, let’s look at the provincial court where a number of custody and access disputes appear. The Attorney General has admitted in this House in question period that there are serious backlogs in many of the provincial courts of this province. He says they are mainly confined to Metropolitan Toronto and the surroundings of Metropolitan Toronto and parts of Ottawa.

After the Attorney General gave that answer, I looked quickly at the latest census for Ontario and, lo and behold, that involves far more than just a simple majority of Ontarians. If you look at the population centred in and around Metropolitan Toronto and in and around the city of Ottawa, a majority of Ontarians are already having difficulty getting access to the provincial courts.

We are well aware that something can say the most wonderful things on paper, and I suggest that is what the Attorney General is doing. He is saying there shall be 10-day applications, this will all be solved quickly by means of an oral hearing, but the fact of the matter is that if you have a shortage of courthouse facilities, as we have, if you have a shortage of judges, which we have, if you already have backlogs which may in some cases be up to a year in length, which we have, then all that this is is paper.

Even if you accept it on its own terms, even if you were to accept, which we do not, that the government is headed down the right track in this kind of legislation, when you look one step beyond into the shape that our courts are in in terms of backlogs, in terms of shortage of judges, in terms of shortage of facilities, it just does not fit. It ain’t there; it is paper only.

The only conclusion we can draw from this, whether in terms of substance or in terms of the mechanisms of the courts and the procedures and the facilities that are there, is that this legislation is not going to help. It is not going to make things any better, it is not going to provide realistic solutions, it is going to make things worse and there are going to be more angry people out there, more frustrated people. Access is not going to be easier, but it will result, as I say, in more conflict.

And to what end? There are children who, in most cases, deserve to be able to see both parents, who want to be able to see both their parents and who want and need the kind of neutral access mechanisms that can provide that sort of realistic access and can do it while playing down the conflict and the volatile situations which already exist.

To put it very specifically, what we would like to see this government do, what we think this government should do, instead of creating another court mechanism, instead of making more lawyers wealthier because they are going to spend more time in court fighting to no positive end and you are going to waste more court time, you are going to spend more money in the courts and the court process, instead of spending the money there, do something positive and provide some funding for those voluntary agencies that are already out there, many of which are cash-starved.

Provide some money for them so that they -- whether through an enhanced day care facility, which as I understand it sometimes works, or whether through the Access for Parents and Children organization which exists in Etobicoke and is a voluntary, funded agency -- can provide the access mechanism which is really needed. Do it that way. Do not waste more money sending it all back through the courts.

I want to deal with some other parts of the bill. I want to deal with some specific sections which we feel have to be looked at, which we feel are deserving of amendment and which we feel will lead to problems if they are not amended. I put the government on notice now that when this is looked at by committee, we will be proposing amendments to the end that I am speaking of right now.

I would first draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to subsection 35a(9) of the act. As it stands now, it says, “The motion shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only, unless the court gives leave to file an affidavit.” That is, if you have an access dispute, one of the parties, or the party who feels that he or she has been denied access, can make a motion to the court asking for a hearing within 10 days. Then subsection 9 says, “The motion shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only.”

Again, a number of the advocacy groups we have spoken to have said to us quite distinctly that the expectation of an orderly oral hearing, the expectation of an oral hearing where justice is done, cannot be supported.

Keep in mind that what you will have coming into court in these situations are people who are already fighting, very likely people who are already angry with one another, very likely people who do not trust one another. In some situations, one of the spouses has perhaps been violent, either physically or verbally abusive, to the other spouse. Do you expect to have an orderly oral hearing? I doubt it very much.

We feel that if you are going to have any type of orderly court procedure in this kind of instance, the evidence will have to be provided by affidavit. If it is provided by affidavit, we suggest that is at least one mechanism of playing down or diffusing some of the anger, some of the mistrust that is likely already there.

Can you imagine having former spouses or separated spouses who are already in a situation of conflict, a mere 10 days after the latest round of conflict has occurred, going into a court and settling their differences in terms of an oral hearing and expecting that oral hearing to be in some way orderly or controlled? I doubt very much that can happen.

In fact, I would suggest that this is a recipe for disorder in our courts and, as I have said, a lot of wasted time and a lot of increased and heightened conflict which we do not think will result in just solutions and we do not think will result in solutions that have any finality or are in any way conclusive.

There is another aspect to this which I think deserves emphasis in terms of the oral hearings, and it is an aspect that is very sad. The fact is that if there has been a history of physical abuse in the relationship or a history of substantial verbal abuse in the relationship, or both, then I would suggest that it may be very unlikely indeed that the party who has been abused, who has been the victim of abuse, will feel confident enough, will feel in control of the situation enough, to be able to go to such an oral hearing and honestly state to the court what her position is and why that is her position.

The Attorney General is asking an awful lot here of someone who may, very recently, have gone through a situation of serious physical abuse to then come to the court, perhaps only 10 days later, and say to the court, “This is why I did what I did and this is why I denied access and this is why I think perhaps continued denial of access is in order.”

The minister is asking an awful lot, particularly of women who may have lived in a physically abusive relationship to do that. Once again, I doubt very much that the minister is going to see justice come out of that kind of situation.

I want to go on to what some advocacy groups have stated is the most significant flaw in Bill 124, and that is in

section I of the bill, which adds subsection 4a to the act and will amend, as I understand it,

section 20 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. It says:

“(4a) Where the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child is in the custody of one of them and the other is entitled to access under the terms of a separation agreement or order, each shall, in the best interests of the child, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other.”

It seems to me that that may be a wish, that may be something we would all like to see. In the ideal world, in the best of all worlds, that is something we would like to see. But how a Legislature and how a court can, first of all, try to state that duty, how we can make that a duty and then how a court can try to enforce it, to me is quite unrealistic.

I know very well that it has been stated in law before and I can only say from my perspective that it is a dumb law. To order someone, regardless of circumstance, that they shall encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other, to me is asking an awful lot of someone.

To me, government, the state really is stepping beyond its bounds to try to make this a legal duty, to try to force separated parents or former spouses to do this kind of thing. I think we are way out of bounds and I think we are going to get ourselves into trouble trying to do this.

How does a court seek to enforce this? What kind of inquiry does it go on? What kind of conflicts are we inviting here?

It shall be the duty of each to encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where I would not want to order someone to do that. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where a court would not want to order someone to do that, where a court would not want to get involved in that kind of thing. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where a custodial parent may be quite justified in not promoting and not encouraging a child to continue a parent relationship with a former spouse.

Again, we are out of line here, where we have situations of serious physical abuse, of serious child abuse and then we are faced with this -- it shall be the duty. I think we are inviting some very difficult situations. I really do not know what this adds in the way of a solution to what are already some very difficult situations. I do not know what it adds in terms of defusing a situation. I think it can only lead to some more difficult altercations, to some more difficult conflicts. So I would urge the government to look very closely at that particular

section and consider taking it right out of the act.

To put it bluntly -- and some advocacy groups have put it to us this way -- an abused parent should not be told that he has to encourage and support the child’s continuing relationship with an abusive parent. If an abused parent is forced to foster the child’s relationship with an abusive parent, it may be that all the safeguards included in the later amendments in this act, all the safeguards that occur later on in the act, are of no value.

If we remove this

section from the bill, I do not think it would weaken the bill in any way, but I do think it would improve the chances, particularly in the case of women, that violence against women would be more seriously considered by courts in these kinds of situations. That kind of occurrence has to be considered. It cannot be subtracted, it cannot be removed, from the dynamics of the relationships which go on here.

Those are some comments from some of the advocacy groups we have spoken to.

I also want to refer to the submission to the Attorney General by the Canadian Bar Association, family law section. I grant that at least the submission I received -- and I do not think there has been a later updated one -- was aimed at the original Bill 60. However, many of the comments that were made in the Canadian Bar Association submission fit Bill 124 just as they fit Bill 60.

The comment that jumps out at me, the comment that to me is relevant, is, “There is concern that this bill does not satisfy the objective of ensuring that noncustodial parents have contact with their children.” In fact, it says, “A bill may not be required to meet this objective.” In other words, the Canadian Bar Association, in its brief, was saying if the interest is -- and I think that is our interest here. Our interest is in ensuring that noncustodial parents have contact with their children.

We are interested in ensuring that the contact is one which is handled in a reasonable manner, that it does not result in all sorts of difficult relationships, in violence, in enhanced conflict, and that it does not result in the child going back and forth from custodial to noncustodial parents in a very unhappy state, in a state of conflict where one parent is saying nasty things about the other. If that is what we want to avoid -- and I think that is our interest here -- the Canadian Bar Association is saying that a bill may not even be required.

In fact, it says, “Some members are of the opinion that the access problems which are designed to be addressed by this bill are not a universal problem, but rather touch a small percentage of the total number of access parents.”

It says, “Certainly there are some access enforcement problems, but it is believed that, by and large, the present method of solving these problems is adequate.” In other words, the present method in the courts is adequate, because it is speaking here about the court system. The present manner of solving these problems in the courts is adequate, and this bill will not add anything in terms of a court solution. In fact, it says: “The bill may create problems which did not exist heretofore. For example, there will undoubtedly be more litigation as a result of this bill.”

So there we have it from the Canadian Bar Association again. Its opinion is that this bill will likely lead to more litigation.

I say again to the parliamentary assistant, he already has a shortage of courthouses. The Attorney General has admitted that. He already has a shortage of judges. In fact, he has had to implement a case management system to try to deal with the backlog of cases, to try to get the backlog of cases moving through the courts more efficiently. He already has situations where judges have a backlog of a year. Now he wants to add, through this bill, more litigation.

Again, I say it is not going to help the situation. It is going to hinder the situation. It is going to result in more parents, more former spouses, more separated spouses, leaving the courts in an angry, frustrated way. I suggest it is going to result in more unhappy children, more children who are deprived of access, which they should have, to both their custodial parent and their noncustodial parent in a majority of cases. That is the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association.

Let me go just a little further, because I want to refer to some of the material that was presented to us by some advocacy groups which reviewed the legislation and which are also in touch with what is really happening out there in terms of the conflicts that are real, the kinds of situations that many parents and so on have had to deal with in terms of access.

I really want to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, having listened to some of these situations, if he really feels that the bill, as it is now, will result in solutions or can do anything for these kinds of examples. Let me give him an example. These are actual cases. These are actual telephone records, notations of situations that have occurred.

A lawyer called the Assaulted Women’s Helpline requesting advice. Every time his client, a former battered wife, drops off her son at her ex-spouse’s house, her ex-spouse assaults her. She called the police after the last such incident, but they left the scene without charging him. That is not unusual. In my practice, I experience that. The next day, the police called the woman into the station to show them her bruises. She felt humiliated in doing so, as the bruises were under her clothes. The police officer refused to request that a woman officer be present. The lawyer was attempting to set aside the abusive ex-spouse’s access.

Now, that is a real situation, where access will likely be denied at some future point -- access probably already has been denied -- where there is going to be an access battle. We are going to send those two people back into court. That is the solution that is proposed by this bill. Those people are going to go back into court. Does the government expect to get some sort of rational settlement out of that, which has finality, which the parties are in some way satisfied with? I doubt it very much.

I say to the parliamentary assistant again that probably what both of these parents want, or at least I am sure one of them wants, would be a neutral access agency where the child could be taken and left in the care and control of a child care worker. Then the noncustodial parent could come along a half-hour later or an hour later and pick up the child. I am willing to bet that is what they want, that is what they need and that would be a solution, very likely, in this case. But again, the Ministry of the Attorney General has decided it will not spend money on this, but it is going to spend more money on sending people back into courts to fight some more.

Let me give you another case. It started on Wednesday at 7 p.m. A call was received from a physically and emotionally abused woman. She called the help line upon the request of a police officer who intervened in a recent attack on the caller by her ex-spouse. The assault occurred when the ex-husband came to pick up the children for their visit together. The help line counsellor discussed options with the assaulted woman. She suggested obtaining a restraining order and having the ex-husband pick up the children at a designated area other than a residence.

Again, that is the solution that is being suggested for many of these cases. I would suggest that these are the difficult cases. The vast majority of custody access disputes are not going to use this bill. They are not going to use this legislation. But these people who have difficulties will be forced to use the bill because that is the only mechanism the government is going to leave for them. Yet a professional counsellor who is acquainted with the situation says what is needed is a neutral agency where access can be arranged and yet you do not have to rub shoulders with one another and you do not have to confront one another.

I say merely to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), that I could go on and cite case after case like this. The parliamentary assistant knows that there are many more of these cases that go unreported and are never documented than do become documented and that are reported because the statistics all show that. There are many more of these abusive situations that go on than ever are reported.

I want to go into in just a little greater detail about the various people this bill really impacts on, that this bill impacts on because it is not just the custodial and the noncustodial parent. Let’s look at the kids. Let’s look at the children. How can the government expect in this kind of conflict, when the Canadian Bar Association, family law section, says this bill is only going to enhance the conflict, is going to lead to more of it and is going to shove more people into already crowded courts, that there can be an outcome out of this bill which will lead to children having a healthy relationship with their custodial -- even their custodial -- and their noncustodial parent?

If children grow up in an atmosphere of conflict, conflict that is enhanced by this kind of bill, how does the government expect that a healthy relationship can result? If its only answer to the conflict is to throw it back into the courts and increase the conflict, how does the government expect that a healthy relationship between children and the custodial and noncustodial parent can result?

Moreover, let’s look at some of the other parties who are involved here. Usually when you have this kind of a situation it is not just, let’s say, the noncustodial parent who does not have access or who fights over access, because very often it is also the grandparents. Very often, when a family splits up and one parent receives custody and the other one has access rights, it is not only the access parent who has to negotiate for access, it is also the grandparents who have to negotiate for access. It is also them; they are also involved.

I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware that last fall a group of grandparents -- there were a number of them, and the stories many of them told were very sad indeed -- came and said, “Look, we don’t see anything coming out of this bill.”

I spoke to many of those grandparents. I said: “What do you think would work?” They said: “Well, we’re sick and tired of going back to the courts. We’ve got legal bills a mile long, and we’ve got negative answers a mile long from the courts. Courts aren’t going to do anything.” They said it again: “We would like to have some sort of mechanism, some sort of agency which would defuse the tension, defuse the conflict and allow us to arrange with the custodial parent that we might see our grandchildren; that she could leave the kids at an access agency and we could come by and visit them.” They are also parties to this.

I say to the parliamentary assistant again, if he is interested in the best interests of children, a healthy relationship with grandparents is part and parcel of the best interests of children in the majority of cases. Yet the only answer I can get out of this bill is that grandparents will have to somehow go in and throw in their application and if they are awarded some sort of access, try to arrange it and if it does not work out, then go back in and fight some more.

Let’s just consider for a moment one of the further items I think is important. Again, as the parliamentary assistant will know, many of the access orders that come out of our courts are access orders which say access must be supervised. What does this bill say for those parents? What does this bill say for those parties? It does not help them at all.

I say again to the parliamentary assistant that if he were to head in the right direction, if he were to scrap this bill and scrap the eventual court expenses it is going to lead to and go instead in the direction of funding access agencies, he would be providing a solution for a far greater number of children, a far greater number of custodial and noncustodial parents, and a far greater number of people who have a legitimate interest in this situation and a legitimate interest in finding solutions to these kinds of situations.

In

summary, let me say to the parliamentary assistant that we will not be supporting this bill. I believe that in my statements I have delineated all of the things we see wrong with it. I believe I have stated that fundamentally we think it is headed down the wrong track and that even if it is headed down the right track, the fact of the matter is that the court mechanisms, the shortage of judges, the shortage of court space will not permit some of the solutions proposed in this bill to ever occur.

How the government intends to get 10-day hearings into courtrooms that are already backlogged a year is really a magician’s imagination. I suggest to the government it can wave the magic wand as much as it wants and it is not going to happen; it is just going to get worse. Some of those parents who are out there are going to be even more angry, more frustrated and more disappointed. The best interests of children are not going to be served by this bill in any way whatsoever. I urge the parliamentary assistant to speak to the Attorney General. I understand he has great persuasive powers with him,

whereas most do not. At least he tells us that when he is in the House.

I urge him to discuss again with the Attorney General, and discuss again with the Attorney General’s adviser who is sitting over here within earshot but out of sight, that they are both headed down the wrong track and that there is a far better way to deal with the multitude of problems that present themselves here. I say again to the government: “We will not support this bill. We think it is headed down the wrong track. We think there is a much better way to do this.

There is a much better way to meet the needs of children, parents, grandparents and all people who have a legitimate interest in this.” I hope the government will take a second look at what is going on here and do the right thing rather than what, I am afraid, is the expedient thing.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to wish the members good wishes for the new year. I have not had the opportunity to wish them the very best for the beginning of what should be a very good year. I hope it is for all of us, with health, happiness and prosperity. May we, in our own families, not have to face some of the problems we are talking about in this kind of bill. I guess, in the spirit of things, I only wish the Attorney General could be here for the debate.

I know he has a worthy parliamentary assistant who will pass on to him the concerns we have to raise and also, I hope, help mediate some resolution to the concerns we have here. I think it is going to take a fair amount of honest consideration by all members of this House, by the public at large and by those who are specifically concerned to work on this bill, and it is hoped, add to it and make it a stronger statement.

We are dealing with a very important issue. It has to do with our families, the families within our society and the importance of helping those families work out their problems effectively so that the long-term best interests of the children, the adults and all those involved are somehow better handled than they have been by past legislation. I realize it is an evolutionary thing. We are not going to solve all the problems with this bill. Bill 124 certainly has within it seeds for more happiness and better resolution of the concerns of those who are in a marital dispute and have a custodial problem over the children.

I see more positive things in it than does my friend in the New Democratic Party. Although I have criticisms and concerns, I trust our party will be supportive of the bill, with the expectation and hope that the government will consider some of the amendments -- I hope all of the amendments -- we will be tabling. This bill has great importance. When we are dealing with the family, with an issue as great as this, I hope we can stay away from parochial concerns. I do not see anyone in this House wanting to do anything other than that.

What we have to do is somehow show to those families that are in a marital breakup situation that there is a society that cares about the best interests of all those who are involved and that the legislation we have here, with the amendments I am going to be proposing, can assist those families in working out those differences.

The definition of the family has changed so much from what it was in my parents’ home and in our own homes, although we are suffering some of the problems we come through in a modern society. With conflicting interests, spouses working and all the things that are going on, it becomes far busier than I think it was years ago. I think we, as a society, have an obligation to really look at the personal needs of everybody. the family unit, as once defined, might well be a father living separately and the mother living separately, one or the other having the children. Then it also becomes a greater family as we are dealing with neighbours, friends and relatives.

Indeed, is any family the same as another, and are we in this Legislature going to solve all the problems of access and custody that really are out there? That becomes a challenge for us. Other jurisdictions have tried to deal with it, some with greater or less success. None the less, I think we face the challenge and I am pleased we have at least this chance to start looking more seriously at this whole issue.

I hope we are not rushed into trying to make a speedy decision and that there will be time for the government to consider the amendments prepared by my staff and myself and one other member of the provincial Legislature who was very instrumental in developing a bill I had the honour to present when he was not elected for another term. When Terry O’Connor was in this House he prepared a bill called

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act. I brought the bill in on November 24, 1987. He was no longer able to present it himself. I had been supportive of the bill when he first brought it forward.

The fact of the matter is that now we are dealing with another bill, placed by the government. I have taken the ideas and concerns that were going to be addressed by Bill 45 and put them into the form of amendments to modify government Bill 124. I am sure we will have an opportunity to go through those in detail in committee. I will copy these amendments to other members of the House so they will have some sense of what it is we want to do.

What we are anxious to do as legislators is to help solve a problem, a problem that has so many ramifications for our society. I just hope we are able to make a concerted effort to do something to help our families who have the problems that come out of divorce and marital breakup. It is a serious problem, and I guess there but for the grace of God go I.

There are those of us who have seen others go through this whole custodial battle where marriages have broken down and they have had to pick up the pieces, create a new life and set up a new household, with the movement of the children from one place to another and all the trauma that goes into that. I do not know how I could handle it, yet I have seen so many others try. The anger rises to such a level. Their way of handling their own problems ceases to be as effective as when there was trust and they had better days. Therefore, what we should do is look to a way to help make it easier, to help somehow establish a framework for the resolution of these access disputes.

I think what is most important is that we provide an alternative to the current system available in Ontario, whereby the recourse for an aggrieved party who wants to clear up an access infraction is to go through a lengthy and expensive application to court for contempt of court on the original court order.

Unfortunately, when you have someone who wants to have access to a child and he or she does not have it and something has happened along the way, it is all tied into so many things. It is tied into the anger that goes to the original marital breakdown. It is also tied into the financial commitments each has to give to the other or the failure of one party to fulfil financial commitments to the other. Then the whole problem of access is tangled up in the same web of this marital dispute, so the children, unless we are far more careful in the future, become the victims of what is going on within our society.

It is almost a farce when you have to go back, and though both parties in a marital breakdown have love for the child, that child ends up being at the losing end of the bargain when he has to go through an extended and prolonged court. I feel the agony of all those people who have gone through it, and surely the courts feel the agony, and the parents and children all do.

So many people who have spoken to me since I brought in Bill 45, my own bill that would have helped deal with this access problem, have said: “Good. Please proceed with it. We could have used that in our own situation.” Maybe there is still time in this House, before we rise or within the next year, so that we will see changes enacted.

I applaud provisions of this bill that address reasonable grounds for denying access as well as redress if a parent infrequently exercises his right of access. The problem we have is the whole business of balance. I think Ontarians and people in this province really have a great empathy for others. Deep down we have a desire for fair play. We do not like violence. We want to be accepting of other people. Yet within our own families, when the anger flares and the tempers are hot, during that crisis, who knows what is going to happen?

It is extremely good to have the kind of balance I think the government is trying to give in delineating some of the concerns that can cause the court to hold back one or the other party from having such easy access. These are defined here in the bill.

I have some concerns with the bill. I guess I would like to touch on some of those concerns because they are embodied as well in my private member’s bill, Bill 45. I just want members to realize that I had hoped to be able to have that private member’s bill debated. Because I do not have any control over the House leader of the Liberal Party, there is no likelihood I would have had it brought up for House business. Inasmuch as I have had only one opportunity for a private member’s debate in the Legislature so far, my chance of having another one is some months away.

I am being waved at as if I want to join the party opposite. The chance of that happening is so slim I could not even begin to imagine it and I would not dare even to think of it.

The concern I have is that my bill, Bill 45, really began to do some of the things that are talked about in this bill. My amendments are going to be addressed in total to the Attorney General’s bill and hopefully will try to bring in some of the concerns I would have solved through my own bill.

I have to look at the business of highlighting the importance of grandparents, especially the parents of those who do not have custodial rights of children. What we really have to look at is, is there any way within this bill that we can have more access granted to those who have some kind of blood affiliation to a child, so that they have an opportunity to see that child?

I do not think we understand the agony that has gone on in the hearts and minds and families of grandparents. If you just go through the stages that happen when there is a marriage breakup -- I am taking a specific example I know. The husband and wife broke up and in the short term they said, “We’ll put the children with the husband’s parents.” So they did, and the children went to the husband’s parents’ home, the grandparents’ home, and were there for some months while the mother and father worked it out.

Finally, when they had worked it out, the mother got access to the children and took them away from the grandparents. Those grandparents, who had developed the same kinds of ties parents would, but understanding that they were grandparents none the less, gave them up knowing they could no longer really have any legal right to those children. Now that the mother had the rights to the children, the grandparents were cut off, absolutely cut off, and have not seen those children again, and under the present law, have no right to see them.

That becomes one of the real moral imperatives a bill like this can include within it, that grandparents have rights as well, and that we have to understand their feelings. Their empathy, their love and the kind of giving of themselves they want to give to their grandchildren is being denied to them, because present legislation does not force anyone to look at them as having any entitlement. That becomes one of the major concerns I have. We are talking about a society that has almost cut the roots off from the past.

I think of days gone by. I know that in my grandparents’ home, everybody was there. It was not just a small nuclear family as we have it today, where it is my wife, myself, my two kids and dog; there were all kinds of generations within the same household and everybody was working to help one another.

It was true in the agricultural society of Ontario, where you really were not sure who was the matriarch or the patriarch because there were several generations within the same household. Now it is more the exception than the rule, but what we are doing is legitimizing

an act that is not really fair or right and has been outside the common law and common practice of the province by saying, “Grandparents have no rights when it comes to custody or access or seeing and gaining contact with their grandchildren.”

I have to tell members there have been more hurt and more silent tears by grandparents in this province because of this. It is something that has been just heartbreaking. It is something that has caused them to say, “Here we have given so much to get our children going,” and they might have helped their children get started, and then when the marriage broke up, all that has been forgotten and now the children are off elsewhere.

It is an emptiness for which there is no cure unless we give those grandparents some legal right, some legal hold within this bill that says: “You do have rights. You have a blood connection that has value to it, and the eyes of the law appreciate that, and there is

now, therefore, a way” -- through what I am going to be proposing in my amendments -- ”for a grandparent to have those rights recognized.”

You could write books, and I am sure many have been written in the form of letters, which have gone unanswered, by grandparents who have written to their son and daughter-in-law or son-in-law and daughter, trying to open up the doors of communication, anxious to say, “Look, I have something to give you,” and the most important gift they have to give is just the love, the caring, the desire to see those children.

There are so many now who have been denied that access. I plead with the Attorney General and I plead with his parliamentary assistant that when we table amendments in the House that will deal with this whole issue of grandparents, they be open-minded on them. Maybe one of the advantages of having the Legislature have a committee that will look at this is that we will have other members of the House who will speak to the Attorney General and let him know they share some of the concerns I have.

I feel I am not expressing it as well as some of the people in the gallery could express it right now. I know there are others who have gone through this in their lifetimes. They do not have a great long future, but they do want to have within the future days of their retirement a chance to be