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

April 21, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE / LOCATAIRES SUR L'AIDE SOCIALE

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE / LOCATAIRES SUR L'AIDE SOCIALE

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

EARTH DAY

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

EARTH DAY

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

VIOLENCE

VOLUNTEERS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

ORDER OF ONTARIO

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GUN CONTROL

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

HIV IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

RACCOON RABIES

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

TENDERING PROCESS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

GAMBLING

LAND USE PLANNING

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Orders of the day.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk determine if a quorum is present, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE / LOCATAIRES SUR L'AIDE SOCIALE

Mr Bisson moved private member's notice of motion number 38:

That, in the opinion of this House, the assembly calls upon the government of Ontario to undertake legislative and/or regulatory changes that would allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act in situations where the tenant is in default in payment of rent.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I bring this resolution to the House as an issue I think many of us have dealt with in our constituencies. However, before starting, I want people to understand quite clearly what I'm trying to do here and not misread or misunderstand what the intent of this resolution is.

We've seen over the past few years a number of people taking runs at some of the most vulnerable people in our society: the people who find themselves unemployed. I was worried, bringing forward this resolution, that people would see it in that light and say: "What is this all about? Is this about taking a run at or attacking those people who find themselves on social assistance either through family benefits or general welfare benefits?"

I want to clearly say that that's not what this is all about. What we're talking about doing here is passing a resolution that simply says that in the event a person does not pay the rent, for whatever reason -- the present situation is that if I happen to be working and paying rent to my landlord, if I don't pay my rent a landlord has a mechanism by which to collect non-payment of rent. The landlord can take me through the Small Claims Court system, bring me before the Small Claims Court and in the end have an order against me to pay the amount of rent I am in arrears.

The problem is that if a person's on GWA or FBA benefits, you as a landlord are able to bring the person to Small Claims Court but have absolutely no mechanism to collect the money even if the judgement is in your favour.

We need to explain the two parts of this. First of all, I think that is unfair. I come from a northern Ontario riding, from Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson. Most of my landlords, 95%, 98%, 99% of them, are people like you and me who happen to own a house, who try to pay the mortgage through the rent they may have coming from an apartment or two within their building. If somebody falls in default of that rent, it means that landlord can't pay his or her mortgage. Clearly, especially in this day and age, you can't have that kind of thing going on.

I've had a lot of people coming into my office -- I wouldn't say hundreds, but many people -- over the past two or three years with exactly that situation, who say: "I've rented out my apartment. My mortgage is due. The person hasn't paid their rent. I've now started proceedings under the Landlord and Tenant Act for eviction, but I have absolutely no way of collecting the money." In some cases that could put that landlord in a really tough spot.

Most people in my riding are working-class people who happen to work at Dome or Royal Oak or Abitibi or Hembruff contracting or Kidd Creek, who own a house and pay the mortgage through the rent to a certain extent, and they can't afford to be put in that position. There's been an extreme amount of frustration on the part of these individuals when they come into my office and find out in the end that there's nothing they can do. They've been calling on me, as their member, to try to find a way of resolving this situation.

With a lot of discussion with both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Community and Social Services, my colleagues and other colleagues across the way, we talked about one of the ways we can possibly do that.

One of the things we need to understand is that when it comes to social assistance, general welfare benefits or family benefits, there's a very good reason you're not allowed to garnishee somebody once you've gone to Small Claims Court.

The money they get is to help them in a situation, more than likely an emergency situation, especially on general welfare, and it was intended through the act not to allow people to be garnisheed in that situation because the little amount of money they get is to pay for sustenance, food, the hydro bill, for making sure your children have shoes to go to school, that you can just do the basic things in life.

In the wisdom of the former Conservative government when they put together this act, they understood you can't start garnisheeing people with $600 a month coming in to pay for groceries for the family and some of those benefits. That's why you're not able to garnishee in a court.

I tried to look at doing this in another way, and what we came up with is this resolution that basically calls on the government to do something that's fairly simple. In situations where somebody falls behind on their rent, and clearly only in those situations -- first, we have to understand up front that people on social assistance pay their rent at the same rate as people not on social assistance. People on social assistance are as responsible as people not on social assistance.

I don't want to leave an impression that because somebody who happens to be unemployed runs out of unemployment insurance benefits and ends up on social assistance, somehow they're irresponsible. That's not what the issue is here.

The issue is that we need to find a mechanism that allows a landlord to get access to the dollars he or she is owed for that rent. What you've got is a contract between a tenant and a landlord. The landlord, in good faith, says, "I will let you live in that apartment and I will provide services to you to make sure you have a good place to live, but what I want in exchange is that you pay your rent at the end of the month," and clearly the landlord is entitled to that payment. This is what's at issue.

I'm calling on us to do simply this: In those situations where the tenant has gone into arrears situation and the money is not able to be collected through normal means, we put in a mechanism that the landlord under that circumstance is able to go to the authorities and say, "Pay the rent directly to me through their shelter allowance." I think that's a fair compromise.

I know there are people who will criticize me. I've had this discussion with people in the House on both sides, and I've had some members from the Liberal caucus as well as members from my caucus say, "Isn't this an attack on welfare?" I want to say up front that this is not what this is about. It's about saying we have a contractual obligation between a landlord and a tenant, and if the landlord's expected to fulfil his or her obligations in that contract when it comes to providing the tenant with an apartment, surely to God the tenant has an obligation to pay that rent. That's really what this is all about.

Basically, what we're calling for is a very simple thing: to allow direct payment of rent in the event that the individual falls into arrears so that a landlord is able to be paid.

I want to bring forward another thing that really bothers me. One of the things we have going through society over these past years is that for some reason, I think because of what's happened in the economy, many people tend to try to blame the problems in the economy on groups of people. One of the things we've seen over the past four, five, 10 years is that many people, from all parts of the political spectrum to a certain extent, turn the guns a little and aim them towards people on social assistance, and say that just because somebody's on social assistance somehow they're not responsible.

We're hearing a lot of derogatory comments through the media, made by very responsible people in our societies, about people on social assistance.

I think we have to refrain from that. We need to understand that fundamentally there is no difference between a person on social assistance and a person who happens to be working, other than that they don't have a job. That's the difference. People do things with the same frequency on social assistance as they do when they're working.

I want to point to an

article I read in today's Toronto Star, a comment made by the Prime Minister yesterday here in Toronto while speaking to a group of newspaper executives. He says, "In my judgement it is better to have them at 50% of productivity than to be sitting at home, drinking beer, at 0% of productivity." I think that's a disservice to the people of this province, a disservice to the people on social assistance. I didn't know that only people who are on social assistance sit at home and drink beer. I sit at home and drink beer like anybody else, and I'm sure my colleagues do too. I see the members across the way waving. I think we have to be very careful not to make those kinds of statements.

Je voudrais seulement, en finissant, expliquer un peu en cours exactement ce que la résolution demande. C'est pour avoir un mécanisme, en fin de la journée, que si le locataire qui paie le loyer et, pour une raison ou une autre, cette personne n'est pas capable de payer son loyer à la fin du mois, qu'on donne directement à la personne à qui appartient l'appartement l'opportunité de faire la collecte de ce qui lui est dû directement, que dans une telle situation la personne à qui appartient la bâtisse est capable de mettre en place un mécanisme pour être capable de payer directement à lui ou elle l'argent qui lui est dû.

Clairement on n'a jamais, je pense, dans cette Assemblée ou n'importe où dans ce pays, dit que juste parce qu'une personne se trouve sur le bien-être social pour une raison ou une autre, elle n'a pas le droit et n'a pas la responsabilité de prendre ses responsabilités. Je pense qu'on a besoin d'être clair que tout le monde sur le bien-être social, c'est du monde responsable comme n'importe qui d'autre.

Mais ce qu'on a c'est une situation présentement où les règlements qui traitent la situation -- si une personne est sur le bien-être social ou si une personne n'est pas sur le bien-être social -- ne sont pas égaux. Ce que cette résolution demande, c'est simplement qu'on a besoin d'avoir de l'égalité dans la loi qui dit que dans n'importe quelle situation, les règlements qui s'appliquent à cette situation sont exactement les mêmes.

Just in closing, I would like to call on my members in this House, because I know you face this problem as well in your own constituencies, to join me today to pass this resolution so we can move forward and bring some fairness to the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Now each party will have 15 minutes, in rotation, to debate this resolution.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on the resolution put before this House this morning by the member for Cochrane South. I'd like to state from the outset that I find the resolution very confusing. The remedy he seeks through resolution 38 already exists within the regulations of the General Welfare Assistance Act and in the trusteeship provisions of the Family Benefits Act.

First, I find it passing strange that the member for Cochrane South presents his resolution today just two weeks after the Minister of Community and Social Services told the recipients of social assistance in this province that they will no longer be paid a minimum shelter allowance but will be paid actual costs. Surely the minister has an administrative process in place to determine what these actual costs are, either through lease conditions or rent receipts or trustee arrangements. I ask the member for Cochrane South, have you talked to your Minister of Community and Social Services about this matter?

The GWA act and regulations manual,

section 0104-02, as it exists today, this morning, in this province outlines measures available to recover rent from social assistance recipients, and I underline;

"If the administrator decides to pay for items on behalf of the recipient, the authority is contained in

section 12(1) of the regulations, which states that an allowance shall be paid to or on behalf of a person, eg, shelter costs to the landlord, fuel allowance to a fuel supplier; the welfare administrator, or any member of his/her staff, may be directly involved in the apportionment of the applicant's assistance and the payments to the other person(

s) on his/her behalf."

In addition, the landlord always has the option of eviction or court proceedings.

I have verified the information I have just related with a number of municipal social assistance commissioners over the past few days as well as with my contacts in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and I am told that the vast majority, over 90%, of welfare recipients pay their rent on time and in full and that the GWA remedy quoted above is very, very rarely used.

The member's resolution therefore does not adequately consider existing regulations which already permit the remedy he seeks from this House this morning. If there's a weakness in the system, it's the reluctance of a local administrator to use the power that he or she possesses.

May I suggest that the member for Cochrane South be very careful to examine the financial, social and legal costs involved in the implementation of his resolution. To download the additional administrative expense of accounting for, producing and mailing two cheques instead of one would add significant financial burden and would force further cutbacks in existing programs which are sorely needed in our communities.

As the member for Oakville South did two weeks ago, this speaker wants a different standard of justice for people on social assistance than for others in Ontario communities. I have no doubt that this resolution will lead to a large number of challenges to the Social Assistance Review Board and to the courts. As you know, current backlogs in both bodies already force long waiting periods on people seeking a hearing, delays which are costly to this province and to the individual appellant.

In closing, I find it curious that the NDP caucus suddenly has a belated concern for Ontario landlords. I would suggest that the member for Cochrane South share his new concern with the Minister of Housing, whose retroactive rent control legislation destroyed the life savings of so many of Ontario's small landlords of whom the member speaks.

I cannot support this member's resolution this morning. It's imprecise to the ultimate and therefore open to many dangerous

interpretations. The social assistance recipients in the member's riding and across Ontario deserve better from him and from the government he represents.

Sadly, the Queen's Park contest I mentioned two weeks ago continues, a contest based on sweeping pronouncements rather than hard evidence, a contest that will increase appeals to the Social Assistance Review Board, a contest that's based on confusion, a contest where the prize is unknown. The contest now has a new player in the member for Cochrane South.

I close by sharing an editorial cartoon from the Windsor Star. It shows a line of people entering and exiting a welfare office. As they exit, they are each wearing a target. Is this how the score is now kept in Queen's Park between the Treasurer, the member for Oakville South and the member for Cochrane South?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I take great pleasure in joining this debate today and congratulate my colleague from Cochrane South in bringing forward this resolution. Frankly, I wish it was a bill. It's an issue I've wanted to speak on for quite some time. I will just title my few words that I'm going to add to the debate A Tale of Two Constituents. They're two stories that I've come across since I've been a member.

The first concerns a constituent of mine who came to me, desperate for help. She was a Jamaican immigrant of very modest means who had scraped together every penny that she'd ever earned and saved and had managed to put a deposit down on a very modest bungalow. Because she wanted to improve the life of herself and her children, she recognized that at the beginning she could rent more modest accommodation for herself and she would top up the amount of money she was getting in rent in an effort to build up some equity in the house.

She bought it at the depths of the recession, so it certainly helped the economy, and then went, actually, to the welfare office and said: "Do you have a family that needs accommodation? I will rent this." In fact, the welfare office recommended this family and the family came forward and she rented. It was a single mother who turned out later to have a man who was a live-in boyfriend -- well, some of the time. He was a truck driver. He was also a motorbike gang member.

The truck was parked illegally on the driveway to this house and the tractor of the truck started to damage the driveway. The owner of the house complained that this was not appropriate, that they were not supposed to be parking the tractor on the driveway. She was told in no uncertain terms to get lost.

Mrs O'Neill: Because she was on welfare.

Mr Turnbull: I'll ignore the babbling on the side.

The tenant stopped paying the rent and the owner of the house went in desperation and said, "Look, I haven't received your rent," and she was put off for some length of time. Then it became very apparent that the tenant, who was a welfare recipient, had no intention of paying the rent.

Finally, in desperation, the Jamaican immigrant -- and I emphasize "Jamaican immigrant" because today there are so many negative things that people are saying. They're good, productive people who have come, like my colleague, from Jamaica originally. We have got so many people who come here and work hard and contribute to our society. She was trying to improve her lot and she was in danger of losing her house; she was in danger of losing all the money she had invested because she couldn't meet the mortgage payments.

She went to the welfare office and the welfare office, responding to a request from the owner of the house -- it was a very simple request. It wasn't, "Pay me directly," in fact; it was just, "Can you put aside that money into some sort of trust fund until at least I can go through the court process?" which was going to take about three months, to be able to at least get the tenant out. The welfare office said, "No, we will not do that." They continued to pay the full amount to the welfare recipient. Meantime, the money was being spent on other things instead of accommodation.

The welfare office could very easily, if it had been directed to respond to these kinds of situations, have put it into a trust fund and that's all that would be required, but it refused to do it.

Finally, this lady of very modest means came to me and she was on the verge of tears, saying, "Please, can't you help me?" I investigated and unfortunately, no, there wasn't any way I could help. I felt very bad, because this immigrant who had come to Canada to better her lot and was a productive member of society was being victimized by the way in which the welfare system was working.

The second story, because I said it's A Tale of Two Constituents, is of another single mother who came to me and she was a welfare recipient and she had suffered, some months before, the loss of her mother. In her bereavement she had reached out for the only vice she had, and that was to go to bingo parlours. She started gambling quite excessively in the bingo parlours and spent all the money that she would normally spend on rent and got herself deeply into the hole. Finally, the landlord was moving against her to have her removed, and she too was on the verge of tears, saying, "What can I do?" I asked her, "Why didn't you pay your rent?" She had no logical reason.

If we had a mechanism which would allow the welfare office, in those few cases -- as the last speaker mentioned, 90% of the people on welfare or better, maybe more than 90% but certainly the vast majority of welfare recipients, don't want to be on welfare. They don't want to be in that situation. They want to be productive members of society. But sometimes people get off the rails and it's a very difficult time.

There is an element of people who deliberately want to use the welfare system in this way, and the welfare system couldn't move in and help. In both of these cases, the system was not working to help them. When people are in these desperate straits of being on welfare, we should reach out and certainly, for the landlords who have welfare recipients as their tenants, we should not make it a difficult situation.

I see my good friend Mr Mills just entering the House. I remember well speaking to him about this particular problem, and he was very sympathetic at the time to what I was speaking to him about. In fact, in discussions with the minister, we were getting nowhere.

I commend my colleague across the floor. I wish that you had brought this as a bill. At least if you have a vote today, sir, where the House supports you, I hope you will use that within your caucus to move this issue forward, because we do need to help the welfare recipients who get off the rails and we also need to help the landlords, the people who rent to welfare recipients, so that it doesn't become a very odious thing having a welfare recipient. If in any way I can help you in your task, I assure you I'm at your disposal.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to start off by saying that I fully support the resolution that's brought forward by my good friend and colleague the member for Cochrane South. What this resolution speaks to is very dear to some of the people in Cochrane North who are in the business of rental units and to the people throughout my riding.

There are a lot of landlords who have two, three or four apartments who depend on an income from tenants to make ends meet, to make their payments and to do the necessary repairs that they have on the building. What I would like to see, and I'm sure we're going to get a lot of support from my own colleagues and members of the opposition and the third party, is that when there's a lapse of a month where the rent hasn't been paid, there is a mechanism in place for the landlord to collect the rent that is owed.

This would ensure that the tenant and the landlord would be able to have the agency pay the rent so that the tenant is not faced with an eviction and the landlord does not have to worry about financial loss. In most cases, direct payment of the rent would be a solution.

I don't want people to think I would consider that those working and those on general welfare or family benefits are any different. If there's an income that's coming in, whether it's from an employer or from family benefits or from welfare, people are expected to pay their rent. In society, this is what we expect. But there are situations where in various parts of the province things are handled in a different situation.

We know that our government has been looking at changes and amendments to the general welfare assistance in finding ways of helping people gain access to training, find suitable day care facilities and find jobs through Jobs Ontario projects which fund employers. Jobs Ontario cannot do this alone, but we have to deal with this. I believe this resolution will deal with the situation between landlords and tenants.

We have to understand that after losing their jobs and running out of unemployment insurance benefits, they have no choice but to utilize the welfare system. We know it was created only as a cushion for those unable to find employment, but they have to have a certain amount of money and a little bit of income to be able to make ends meet from the time they've lost their employment and ended up on either family benefits or welfare until they get back into employment.

At the same time, I've met many landlords who are going through tough times: four or five months without receiving any income through rents. I believe this is not necessary in today's society. Most people pay their rent on time, but I would suggest that there are probably in the neighbourhood of 2%, 3%, 4%, at least less than 10% in my riding, where the landlords are having problems.

I've met with the landlords' association, I've met with individual landlords and they've raised the issue with me: "Len, how can you help us to make sure we're not put in the position where we have to evict people from their apartments? Is there a system of direct payment that can be put in place? If they're one or two months behind, is there any way we can get the rent?"

I know this is not a new situation. It's been developing over the last 20 years. But we also have to understand that we've been in a recession, the worst recession in 50 years, which has been going on for three years.

With that, I would just like to say once again that I congratulate my good colleague Mr Bisson for bringing this forward during private members' hour today. I'm sure he's going to get support from the government members, the official opposition members and the members of the third party. I congratulate him on that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, which the member for Cochrane South introduced as ballot item number 49.

It's rather interesting that the NDP, the government of the day, is introducing something like this. I'm not at all surprised that it's a private member's bill. The fact is that now they have the opportunity to bring in something sensible as a government bill, but what they are doing is floating this situation on a private member's bill about shelter allowance. They would never have thought about it before.

The problem I have is that, as a matter of fact, I fully agree with the member for York Mills that it should be a government bill, not a private member's bill.

The NDP, as you know, Madam Speaker, and you fully agree with me on this, has never had a balanced view on housing. They have always advocated only for the tenants, who need, of course, some advocates in order to support their position, and justifiably so. But as a government you cannot look on only one side of things. If you're bringing legislation in, it should be balanced.

Not at all surprisingly, the Conservative Party has never understood housing policy, because it feels that only the landlord should be driving this policy of housing.

We and our leader, Lyn McLeod, have stated over and over that we must have a balanced approach to housing policies. We must involve the non-profit housing component and also the private sector contribution in giving supportive housing to the people of the province.

Unless we decide that we can take it sensibly and approach it in a manner where we can have a balanced approach, we will always have this adversarial aspect of it, one supporting the tenant and the other supporting the landlord. In the balanced approach, we'll have a proper housing policy.

How surprising it is too that this legislation talks about a shelter allowance. Let me first say that I believe in shelter allowances. I believe too that we should have control. We have a rent review process that we brought in in 1986 and followed through with in order that we have some control of the charges for our rental accommodation.

The problem we have in this situation here is on the road to a proper way of handling shelter allowance and handling rental payments, and default in rental payments. As my colleague stated, there are provisions that can be done in order to require the amount of money be placed for the rent to guarantee that landlords get their money when there is default.

Many of the landlords and the care givers today in our cities, especially in Toronto -- I know of a group that is challenged all the time by those people who are given accommodation. They are unable to collect the rent, because as soon as those individuals get their rent, some demands are placed on them that they sometimes seem to respond to quicker than their accommodation. Accommodation is so important. The care givers say to them: "Your accommodation is first. That's what you should emphasize. In this country there's severe cold and you need this accommodation. You must pay for that."

However, some other people hijack them of their money or demands are placed elsewhere and they have no accommodation. What happens is that they have to go somewhere else, like the Salvation Army or some other shelter, to get accommodation for the night because they're scared to come to the place where they did not pay their money.

What is happening? The government would have paid twice. They would have paid them through the welfare or the family benefits for accommodation, but which did not get paid to the care givers or the landlord, and then they would go to the shelter, where it is again paid.

I think the direction in which the member is going is right, that we should have some sort of shelter allowance, maybe a certificate, in the sense that, "Here is a housing certificate and it can only be spent for accommodation." You give that in order to get your accommodation going properly.

The public trustee, of course, as we know, handles some of those situations. They are just overwhelmed with the type of administrative work they have to do.

The hospitals also at times handle some of these situations where people have nowhere to go after leaving the hospital or they would more or less have their funds coming in and not be able to re-enter the place where they're owing rent because, again, they have abused it.

So I think it's the right direction, but I want to say there's a bit of hypocrisy here, though, which bothers me. The fact is that the Housing minister, who I find very insensitive to the overall policy of housing, that she would have not come in here today and say to the honourable member for Cochrane South, "Let's get together and make a bill that will address the situation on the government level" -- but oh, no, sneaking it through here hoping it will die.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is only a resolution.

Mr Curling: My colleague on the government side says, "It's only a resolution." In other words, let's float it; it will die. I'll tell you something: There are many members on our side who are prepared to support this and also the Conservative side, although I'm not quite sure the Conservatives understand the process of housing, will support that. I'm sure every single one of your members over there will support the shelter allowance situation. I know that. You're committed in order to make sure that everyone who's in need of accommodation will be paid through this shelter allowance process.

But it's a half-baked process. Do it properly, as my colleague said, so that in some situations it can be addressed, but now, presently, come forward with a bill that is sensible. Come forward like what the Liberals did and bring a balanced approach to housing. Come forward right now and assess the situation properly now that the cost of non-profit housing is even higher than the private sector which can produce accommodation. Say to yourself, maybe non-profit housing can be better delivered through the private sector, because right now, you are delivering non-profit housing at a higher cost.

You see what I'm saying? The NDP, who used to be so concerned about accommodation on the one side, and the Conservatives, who seem to be so concerned about accommodation who want to deliver in the private sector, don't understand that both sides have to come together in delivering that, exactly the way the Liberal Party, through Lyn McLeod, has said over and over. As a matter of fact, in Ottawa, Lyn McLeod has stated that what we should be doing is put a moratorium, a stop, on all of this. Let's look at it rather sensibly and decide to come up with a strategy to address the needs of people.

I know how sensitive it is to all that they're playing politics with this. In Housing itself, in all respect, while they have their hearts in it, their minds are not there at all. They don't have the full understanding of it. Get the private sector, get some of the non-profit people who have worked along with this to give you some of the answers, not come in with this kind of half-baked situation in order to say that this is the way we will deliver shelter allowance and protect the landlords.

Landlords, of course, need to be protected. Their assets need to be protected in order that they would have that accommodation for those people who come in here.

I will support this, I tell you, and hope that the Minister of Housing is listening and also would bring in a rather sensible bill to cover it all.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Now we've had a lesson from the former Liberal Housing minister, we can prepare to deal with the opportunity that we have to comment on the resolution from the member for Cochrane South.

He calls on the provincial government to make legislative and/or regulatory changes to allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act, when a tenant is in default of his or her rental payments. I just wish this had been in the form of a bill instead of a resolution and we could have had some time in committee to debate it.

Many landlords in Simcoe East tell me they're sick and tired of people ripping them off and ripping off the system and they say to themselves: "We are struggling to survive. We're operating under rent controls."

Ontario taxpayers deserve and are demanding social services; they want workers' compensation and health care that are effective and accountable and not a waste and a fraud. I want to make it clear that the landlords and I know the majority of welfare and family recipients are truly in need. But we also know there always will be a small group of people who will take advantage of and abuse our caring social system. Those same people who are taking advantage of the system will not hesitate to stick the landlords with unpaid rent and their unpaid hydro, gas or oil bills.

Landlords are taxpayers and they understand better than most the need for government to provide services in an efficient, responsible and financially sound fashion.

I'd like to share with you just a couple of instances of people who brought to my attention -- Helen Wright, who owns property on Barrie Road in Orillia, and Marie Richardson, who owns property near Elmvale.

On March 21, Helen Wright wrote to me with regard to some problems she was having collecting rent. Tenants moved in in April 1993 and by July 1993 they'd only paid $600 in rent. By a few months later, there was $1,640 that was an outstanding balance. She supplied a letter to the welfare department, signed by the tenant, directing them to pay the rent directly to her. However, they refused to do that. The tenant agreed to do that, but the welfare system would not do it. If there's an administrative problem, then how come we're getting these letters from people such as that who do want to have it paid direct?

The other lady, with regard to the problems she was having -- they had a lot of damage done to their property. The landlord spent $300 extra, over and above, in legal costs; $1,300 of a bill she had and nobody would pay it.

We all know there was a time when tenants had few rights to protect them from the few unscrupulous landlords who tried to take advantage of them. However, times have changed and I believe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of some tenants who abuse the social system and the patience and goodwill of the landlords.

That is why I will be supporting this resolution to allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act when a tenant fails to pay their rent. I thank these people for giving me the opportunity to read some of their letters in this debate today so that tenants and landlords will have a deal whereby their rent will be paid directly if they so desire.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have had several calls to my office about this issue and that is some concern to me because, to tell you the truth, this isn't a large metropolitan area like downtown Toronto. This is a smaller community where we know a lot of people and everyone knows each other, but it's become worrisome because I see this type of thing happening even in our smaller communities.

I would like to mention a couple of letters I've got. One was from a gentleman who said: "As a landlord, I feel it is very unfair that I can't collect from a bad tenant. As of now, I have a tenant that owes me four months' rent, plus over $500 to get them out. In my opinion, people living off the taxpayer should be just as obligated to pay their rent as a person working for a living and they should be made to pay through the courts the same as a working person.

"I will not rent to someone on mother's allowance again unless I am guaranteed I get the rent. The rent cheques should go to the landlord directly."

When my opponents talk about targets, we see here that there are people being targeted, but they are everybody else on FBA or everybody else who needs social assistance and that's a concern. I think we do have to tighten up for those who aren't following the rules, who aren't playing fair.

He goes on to say: "I hope these issues will be given some thought and consideration. As a landlord, I like to be fair to everyone, but I can't let this kind of thing happen, as I need to collect rent in order to pay for the upkeep of the apartment, such as taxes, expenses," and so on and so forth.

I had another letter from a gentleman, who said:

"I have a problem. I had a person living in the house. She was finally evicted for non-payment of rent for many months, damage to the apartment, continually disturbing the rest of the neighbourhood. I had a rough time getting her out through the courts, which cost me more money on top of having to pay for the upkeep of my place and fixing the apartment up after she left.

"I attended court twice, to which she never bothered to appear nor send anyone on her behalf to represent her. The General Division agreed she must pay back half the utilities. That amounted to over $500 plus my expenses. In small claims court I was awarded in the area of almost $3,000 for back rent and damages. This is all fine, but I have not been able to collect a cent.

"This person is on mother's allowance and it seems that she gets off scot-free at my expense and continues to abuse the assistance programs to this day."

That's what I'm saying: In some cases there is abuse, but even though the courts determine that the landlord is entitled to arrears, the likelihood of ever receiving this money from FBA recipients is virtually nil. Being on social assistance should not exclude persons from their financial responsibilities.

Firstly, being on social assistance should not exclude persons. The money a social assistance recipient receives monthly is based on their budgetary needs. The shelter allowance is based on their actual monthly rental or mortgage costs. If a recipient is receiving money to pay this shelter cost and is not putting it towards this expense, they are in essence committing fraud. If they did not have any shelter costs, their budgets would be adjusted accordingly.

Is there a way this problem could be remedied? In a case such as this, where the courts have determined that the landlord is legally entitled to collect the rent arrears, could the recipients be charged with an overpayment for the moneys instead of using them for shelter costs?

A second concern is the fact that presently landlords are unable to collect arrears, even though the court has ordered, and that, unfortunately, affects all persons receiving social assistance. It is probably one of the main reasons landlords are hesitant to rent to social assistance recipients. I am aware of landlords that are legally not allowed to discriminate, but the reality is that this problem does affect the decision in selecting their tenants.

There are no specific directions given under FBA or GWA as to how a person must spend their allowance; however, it is expected that people receiving social assistance pay for their shelter costs. Overpayments cannot be collected from recipients based on the manner in which they spend their allowance, but rather overpayments are recovered where a recipient has received assistance to which he or she is not entitled. Therefore, let me point out that they would not be entitled to this percentage --

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Two per cent of that is recovered.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs Haslam: That's correct. They would not be entitled to this money if they're not giving this money to the landlord. Therefore, we should be looking at a way that we can tighten up the criteria.

It's unfair. It's unfair to landlords because they're the ones who are renting and not getting their damage paid, they're not getting recovery through the courts. It's unfair to other GWA recipients because they are targeted like those who are not following the rules. It's unfair to the FBA recipients because people don't designate between those two, and therefore the FBA recipients who are being fair, who are on social assistance and need some help, are not being treated fairly. It's unfair to the women and the children who need social assistance, who need places to live, and they need decent shelter.

So I think the solutions are not quick to find, not easy to find. I think it's something that we do have to look at, and I will be supporting my colleague's motion in this instance.

Mr Mills: I am pleased to rise in my place this morning and speak in support of my colleague from Cochrane's resolution.

It's not an easy solution that we're faced with. I want to just start off my comments by saying, most people on welfare today and in receipt of some social assistance are there not because they want to be there; they are there because they're grasping at the social network to keep them afloat until they're able to get back into the workforce.

I do not like the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday in the House of Commons that suggests somehow that people on welfare are just hanging around drinking beer and wasting time and picking up money. Most of the people in my riding who are on welfare are there because it's the last straw in their existence. I have people --

Mr Jackson: He is only talking about the poor in Ontario.

Mr Mills: You tell Earl Warren that on your show. I'm speaking.

I want to talk about the problems that people have in my riding. The member for York Mills and I discussed this over a year ago. Some of the people in my riding are ordinary working folks who have somehow managed to get together the down payment on a house and the very essence that they can hang on to that property after all those years of effort is through regular payment of rent.

I believe, contrary to some of the debate that's taken place, that most people on social assistance are decent, upright citizens and they're there because there's no other way from there. These people also meet their obligations in a very honest, straightforward way. But like every situation that we have in the province of Ontario, there are some people who don't play the game. This is likewise true in paying the rent.

There are certain pressures that come upon people at the end of each month, I'm sure, that force their hand about who they're going to pay and what they're going to pay first. What I would like to see, my colleague from Cochrane, is that some method be put into place where people who miss one month's rent are given some sort of stern warning and spoken to and told this is not on and the next time, the right of paying the rent themselves is taken away.

I think everybody, whether you're on social assistance, whether you're in the workforce, should have the dignity to be able to manage the money that they get, be it from work or from social assistance. I am a great believer in that dignity and giving the people that dignity to manage their own affairs. I came from England years ago when people ended up in the workhouse. I think that's awful, that we somehow say to people: "You can't manage your affairs. The state is going to take over and we're going to pay the rent for you."

Something has to be done and it's my understanding, I believe, that down the road in some reform this issue is being looked at and I look forward to that day. But in the meantime, I want to make it perfectly clear that while I support this resolution this morning, I also recognize the dignity that we should afford to people who, as a last resort, are on social assistance for their very existence, brought about, I might add, by the diabolical free trade agreement and NAFTA and all these other measures that --

Interjection: GST.

Mr Mills: And the GST, my colleagues over there, their cohorts.

I also read in the press yesterday that the federal Liberals are determined to cut and slash more transfer payments to the province of Ontario and make more people dependent on the social assistance programs. I don't know where we're going to get the money but I say shame on the federal Liberals, shame on the 96 people who do nothing for this province and shame on the Prime Minister of Canada for suggesting that people hang around and drink beer.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further debate? The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I just can't believe it. I imagine Tommy Douglas must be rolling over in his grave to listen to the outpouring of support from the socialists for the private sector. I'm going to send this Hansard to so many people who won't understand what this new enlightenment on the part of the NDP is. There isn't an NDP member in the House today who has any more than three years' experience in this Legislature, and that's unfortunate. The truth of the matter is that they would be aware that there has been resolution after resolution in this House calling for this kind of reform.

I commend the member for Cochrane South for his courage in bringing this forward. It's not an easy resolution, after all. But the arguments purported by the government that this has got to be fairer for landlords is an unbelievable argument coming from the socialists. I applaud them, I applaud every speaker who has gotten up with this new-found version of hypocrisy, but if that's the new marching orders from the Premier, go for it.

The truth is that the Liberal government, when it was running the show, started out -- I want to give you some idea. If you listened to the Liberals, what was their argument? The argument was that it would be too bureaucratic.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Can't you figure it out, Cam?

Mr Jackson: You might learn something. Listen to these figures. When the Tories left power in 1985, we were spending $8 million on rent control, to administer the entire rent control plan in this province. After the ravages of the Liberal government, including a former minister who stood up in this House and spoke on this debate, rent control is costing the taxpayers of this province nearly $50 million. So much for the Liberal argument about growing bureaucracy.

Now the NDP has a bill before the House called Bill 120 that's going to expand rent control services to thousands and thousands more residents in this province, including illegal basement apartments, all sorts of people receiving care in retirement-type homes. The government has been asked for the last nine months, how much more is it going to cost? You know what? They don't have a figure. So why should we be surprised that we have a very good resolution here today where the Liberals say, "My God, it's going to cost more money" -- we know that -- and the government can't tell us how much?

There are a lot of problems associated with social assistance and ensuring that every citizen has a right to accommodation. We have argued, for example, that we cannot compound the difficulties facing the poor by exposing them to more lotteries and gambling and opportunities to have their limited paycheque diminished. The children become school-phobic because they're more mobile, and tenants are rotating in and out of these buildings because they fall behind in their rent.

The truth of the matter is that the Tories have been fighting for shelter subsidies and this kind of linkage for the last eight and a half years. So I applaud the member for Cochrane South for bringing forward the resolution. I can't believe my ears that the NDP is actually defending landlords in Ontario, but thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Time for debate has expired. The member for Cochrane South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bisson: I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues today in regard to what a lot of members recognize is a fairly serious issue and, I would admit, an issue many of us have been trying to deal with over the years.

I just want to respond to one thing so that there's no misunderstanding. One of the assertions that was made in the debate is that there is a mechanism already within GWA for a landlord to collect the rent directly. If we take a look at the system, it doesn't work, because one component is that the landlord must get the tenant to sign the paper to make it happen, and that's a fairly difficult situation to make happen.

What I'm calling for is to make sure we have a system in the end that says people their responsibilities when it comes to a contractual arrangement made between a landlord and a tenant. No matter whether they're a working person or a person on social assistance, they must take that responsibility. No way should a landlord be in a situation where because a person decides they don't want to take their responsibility, his livelihood and his home are put in jeopardy.

We must put on the record that the vast majority of landlords this would affect are people like you and me, people of working class who own a home because they're able to rent a unit in it to pay the mortgage. To put people in a situation where all of a sudden, because a tenant decides not to pay the rent, you have no recourse is highly unfair not only to the landlord but to the tenant.

I applaud the members who are going to be voting with me today to support this resolution, and I really, really appreciate the support they have given.

Juste pour conclure, je veux seulement dire que j'apprécie beaucoup le temps que les députés ont pris pour parler sur cette motion. Je veux dire clairement que les règlements que je regarde pour faire des changements donneraient finalement en Ontario, si on est capable d'en venir à un accord pour supporter cette résolution, l'occasion de mettre en place un système qui dit qu'on a des règlements qui sont égaux pour toutes les personnes impliquées dans cette situation.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. A vote will be held on Mr Bisson's motion at 12 noon.

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition / Projet de loi 151, Loi visant à réglementer l'achat et la vente de munitions.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Canada spends $7.7 billion per year on policing, in our courts and in our correctional institutions, yet people still don't feel safe on our streets and in our communities. On the question of violent crimes, people want governments to act and to act now. They are demanding, and they are entitled to, stronger measures of prevention and stronger measures of enforcement.

Unfortunately, for some people it will be too late. Of course, I'm referring to the type of case which occurred in Ottawa, the Nicholas Battersby case, where a young man was gunned down while walking on an Ottawa street in a drive-by shooting, and the café killing of Georgina Leimonis in a Toronto-area cafe.

And of course we have a lot of people who are demanding stronger action of enforcement, in fact zero tolerance, in our schools.

On that point, I want to refer to a letter which I received from an Ottawa-area high school teacher, one Colleen Fraser. It's dated April 8, 1994, and addressed to me.

"As my MPP, I must remind you that the Elgin Street slaughter and mayhem that has so sickened Ottawa is once again an opportunity for our society to address the misguided direction in which we are all heading." It goes on to say: "Is it not now time for law-abiding members of society to receive a signal from the justice system that their rights and safety are at least as important as those who victimize others for adventure? As a local high school teacher, I am frightened by the increasing violence and lawlessness within the schools. How can students learn academic and personal responsibility when increasing murder and assault are punishable by such insignificant penalties?"

And it goes on to say: "Please respond to my concerns with something other than a form letter. In particular, I very much want to know the changes you will be advancing in response to this latest outrage."

People everywhere are asking the legislators for action and they want to know what we are going to do. Indeed governments have been lax and must act now.

We limit by age the sale of cigarettes. We limit by age the sale of alcohol. We limit driving by age. But we have no such limit on the sale of lethal ammunition. That has to change.

Indeed, according to the Ottawa police, in the drive-by shooting on Elgin Street, by young offenders, I might add, the police say it was an illegal weapon but that the bullets were store-bought over the counter, bought legally by these young people, who are not of age to buy alcohol or cigarettes. That's intolerable.

Why this bill? This bill is

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition. People are saying, "We want stronger action on gun control, enforcement and prevention." Well, we in this Legislature do not have the authority, the constitutional jurisdiction, to deal with gun control matters. That is for the federal Parliament to do under our Constitution. Indeed, the federal Minister of Justice has stated that he is going to move, and move quickly, on the area of gun control in terms of prevention and enforcement. We encourage him to do so.

We support him in doing so, because the people in Canada, the people in Ontario, are demanding it at the present time. They do not feel safe on our streets. So this bill deals with a retail matter which we feel is within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. It deals with the control of the sale and purchase of ammunition over the counter.

It's a very simple bill. I'll read a couple of the sections.

First, "No person shall purchase ammunition unless the person holds a valid Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate and produces it at the time of purchase." Of course, for that there are penalties of up to $5,000 for the first offence and up to $10,000 for a second or subsequence offence. I've received a lot of comments from people who feel these penalties are not sufficient enough, that they should be higher, but hopefully this bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, where changes can be made and suggestions can be received.

The bill also says, "No person shall present, for the purpose of purchasing ammunition, an Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a firearms acquisition certificate other than the card and licence or the certificate that was lawfully issued to him or her." That also has penalties of up to $10,000. That is going to be used to prevent the transferring of this card, which is already issued in Ontario but is not required for the purchase of ammunition. The transfer and forgery of this type of card would be a serious offence under this legislation.

This bill is not a major step in the course of crime prevention, the use of guns and the whole area of gun control. It is a small but important step. It is an area this Legislature has the jurisdiction to deal with. We're asking the people who will be here to vote today in the Legislature to support this bill in principle and send it to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The major steps in terms of gun control, prevention and enforcement, as I said, are at the federal level, and we encourage the federal government and the federal Justice minister, the Honourable Allan Rock, to move on that as quickly as possible. But there are some steps, major steps, which can be taken in the province of Ontario by the Attorney General. Of course, she can instruct prosecutors to seek stricter sentences for persons convicted of gun-related crimes. She can also prohibit plea bargaining of gun-related offences, 80% of which are plea bargained away or given minimal sentences.

That is a serious flaw in Ontario in terms of controlling guns, in terms of prevention and enforcement, and that is that the people who are charged with gun offences are basically not having to face any sanction for these. They are plea bargained away in connection with other crimes, such as burglary, robbery, you name it; and when they are given sentences, they're given minimal sentences. That is not acceptable to the people of Ontario at this time. The government can also enforce zero tolerance in our schools with respect to weapons.

Very simply, we're asking the members of the Legislature today to approve this bill in principle. There are changes that can be made. There are submissions that we want to hear from different groups. But hopefully we can take some action and this bill can be enacted before the end of this session in June.

I want to make reference to one of the objectors. Last night I received a fax from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and I'll just read very briefly from that:

"Provisions must be made to allow target shooters, legal handgun shooters, and those who use firearms to control predators and nuisance animals, to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card or FAC. At a minimum, a restricted weapons permit issued by the chief provincial firearms office must also be accepted documentation."

We certainly would welcome the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to come to the justice committee. We certainly would look to making changes that hopefully could accommodate their concerns. Indeed, they're offering to come to the committee and to work with all parties in the Legislature to come up with a better means of prevention and enforcement of gun offences. That group is particularly concerned with the large number of weapons which are imported from the United States. That is an area which has to be dealt with by the federal government.

In conclusion, I want again to refer to the letter Colleen Fraser wrote to me on April 8. She says, "Please respond to my concerns with something other than a form letter." I'm asking all members of this Legislature to please respond with action. We can always find reasons not to do something. We have all the reasons in the world now to do something collectively and in a non-partisan way. So I urge you to please vote for this and refer it to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I will be supporting the bill on second reading in principle. The bill is clearly hastily put together. We just received a copy of it this weekend. There are significant flaws and concerns and implications, jurisdictional and otherwise, but we do support the principle and believe it's something that should be considered through a standing committee of the Legislature.

I am bothered by what's happening here in respect to the Liberal Party of Ontario. They're coming to this whole issue rather late in the day when some very terrible things have happened, in Toronto, in Ottawa and in other parts of Ontario.

Our party, the Mike Harris Ontario Conservative Party, has been dealing with these issues for a significant period of time. I can recall when we established a task force to take a look at law and order issues in the province that we were ridiculed by the Liberal members in this Legislature. They said we were rednecks, we were scaremongering. We took the time to travel the province for over nine months listening to people, listening to everyday Ontarians, listening to crown attorneys, listening to lawyers, listening to police officers.

We developed a document. We're the only party in this province that has a significant document dealing with the concerns of Ontarians in respect to justice issues, A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario. I would urge the public, anyone viewing, to call our office, 1-800-665-MIKE, and we'll be pleased to provide Ontarians with a copy of this document. It's a very fine document with a lot of work put into it.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Again members of the other two parties are treating this as a joke, and that's the way they've dealt with this whole justice issue for the past number of years. It's a bit of a joke, a sad one, that the Liberal Party is trying to capitalize on some very terrible incidents in this province. I want to remind our viewers, if no one else, of their track record of five years in office. I just want to remind people of some of the matters that came to a head during the Liberal years in office.

The SIU, the special investigations unit, was the creation of the Liberal government. We know of all the difficulties the SIU has created for police officers in this province: the hiring policies of the SIU; its going after police officers -- that seems to be its sole mandate -- in areas where there clearly is no justification. We've even seen the NDP use preferred indictments, but this is quite comparable to the Liberals in the creation of the SIU in going after police officers.

Susan Eng, who is the current chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, a Liberal appointee, certainly has not been a friend of police officers or policemen and policewomen and has been consistently attacking police forces and police officers in Metro Toronto. She has had a vendetta against Chief Bill McCormack, has wanted to get McCormack out of the Metro board. She's been rather quiet for the last year or so because she realizes the public is not supportive and perhaps she has some electoral ambitions of her own, I don't know.

Ian Scott, who was the Liberal Attorney General: I can recall an incident where drug dealers were convicted by a court in Toronto and were turned right back out on to the streets. Two Metro detectives who had spent months trying to get these people into court and convict them were furious with the judge and the courts that put these people right back out on the streets to deal drugs and impact upon young people in our communities. They expressed their frustration with that judge and with the court system.

What was the reaction of the Liberal Attorney General? He got up and vented his spleen against the police officers. He said he was going to have those officers reprimanded, even dismissed, if they dared to criticize the justice system that was putting drug dealers back out on to the street after they had spent months and months trying to get convictions and rid us of that vermin. That's what Ian Scott, the Liberal Attorney General, said on that day. I recall it vividly.

Police concerns: I have a quote from 1989, during the Liberal years in office. A police officer phoned my office and told us that in his 31 years as an officer, he had never seen police morale "as bad as it is today." He said: "There's no leadership in the Ontario government. There's no one to back us up." That was a Liberal government.

I could go on about a host of areas; one quick one where Wade Lawson was shot by Peel Regional Police driving a stolen car attempting to run down those officers. Two Liberal cabinet ministers attended that funeral. Not during the Liberal tenure did one minister ever get up to express condolences over an officer shot or wounded on the job, but they went to the funeral of a man who was driving a stolen car and attempted to drive down police officers. That's the kind of support police got in this province from the Liberals.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I know that the constituents in my riding and right across Ontario were clearly horrified by the senseless drive-by shooting of Nicholas Battersby in Ottawa that the member for Ottawa West referred to. I know they were also horrified when felons burst into the Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto and turned it into a killing field.

I was personally concerned because not too long ago my younger sister, when she was an art student, was a waitress at Just Desserts. I'm sure she was equally shocked to hear that a quiet, tranquil place where people go to consume cake and cappuccino was suddenly turned into a killing field in a very mindless and senseless way.

So who could possibly oppose greater restriction of the sale of ammunition? I certainly can't. Most people I know couldn't oppose further restriction of ammunition sales. However, we do have to be mindful, and I think that the member for Ottawa West is mindful, that there are some constitutional challenges here.

We have, under the Criminal Code, provisions that deal with the sale of ammunition.

Section 110 allows for reasonable conditions to be placed on ammunition permits.

Section 94 prohibits the sale of ammunition to people of unsound mind, to people who appear to be influenced by alcohol or drugs or to people who are prohibited by the courts from possession of ammunition.

Under the regulations to the Explosives Act, dealers of ammunition are not permitted to sell to people under the age of 16 unless they have special permits for sustenance hunting; that is, hunting as a way of life.

We know there are problems when the province attempts to trench on federal jurisdiction. It's unfortunate that Bill C-17, rushed through by the former federal Conservative government, did not contain any amendments to the requirements for sale of ammunition. That would certainly have been laudable. We have to continue to urge our federal counterpart to change the law to restrict the sale of ammunition. It seems absurd to me that you require a firearms acquisition certificate to acquire a firearm, but you don't need an FAC to acquire ammunition.

Presently, the province does issue firearms ammunition permits to dealers, who are obliged to follow regulations that deal with safe storage, keeping sporting ammunition out of the hands of young people, and certainly there's customarily a criminal record search before those ammunition permits are distributed.

This bill does not deal with some of the concerns of the federation of anglers and hunters. How do we deal with farmers? How do we deal with target shooters? How do we deal, for example, with native people who the Supreme Court, in the Sparrow decision, indicated have a right to hunt and fish in their traditional areas? We need to address that as well. So there are a number of problems that need to be addressed with this bill.

As my time is short, I just want to deal with one other issue raised by the member for Ottawa West. That is the issue of mandatory imprisonment for use of a firearm during a crime under

section 85 of the Criminal Code. I would alert the House and the people who watch the proceedings in this House to the fact that the crown law policy manual gives clear direction regarding the treatment of

section 85 offences by prosecutors.

In all cases involving the use of a weapon or firearm, crown counsel are obliged to point out to the court that such involvement is an aggravating factor relevant to the issue of sentencing and should be reflected in a harsher sentence. In terms of plea bargains, the crown policy manual says that these plea bargains should not be the subject when

section 85 is concerned.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. I agree with the member for Ottawa West that this is not a cure-all, it's not a major step, but it is I think an important step in helping reduce access to guns, which I think are the primary unfortunate player in violent crime in our communities.

I represent a community where concern and fear about violent crime is a daily unfortunate fact. I think of the people I represent in Regent Park, where last year there were seven shootings in seven weeks. Much of that, according to the police, is related to the drug trade and we need to do something about drug trafficking as well. That kind of criminal activity on a consistent basis can do nothing but raise fears.

It's not isolated there. In the St Lawrence neighbourhood recently, there were unfortunately two violent incidents within a short period of time which have caused a lot of concern there. The members in Corktown and people involved in SOBRA, the Seaton Ontario Berkeley Residents' Association, the Carleton and Jarvis area, St James Town, Cabbagetown, areas all across the riding I'm proud to represent have a fear about what's happening in terms of crime.

I think this is an example of where we can say we're doing something. We are saying that we can do a little bit to reduce the amount of violent crime and the access to guns and, importantly, ammunition that is out there now, because we see that in the streets.

There are other initiatives we can support. Community policing and foot patrols: 51 Division has had a 33% cut in its foot patrol, which is clearly the most effective way to police the downtown community. It's a shock to me. I'm told that part of the reason there's been a cut in community policing in my riding is because of the social contract. It's unfortunate that an essential service like policing was not taken out of the social contract.

I think actually there's a good example of why we should support something like this ammunition bill. I have in the members' gallery Tanya Whiteside, who is my MPP for a day.

Applause.

Mr Murphy: Yes, by all means; please applaud her.

She was shocked to find out that she could walk into any store and buy ammunition. I wanted to pass that message on to the legislators here and hope that will encourage them to support this.

The member for London South expressed concern about constitutionality. I think there is clearly an overlapping jurisdiction here, but I have canvassed constitutional law lawyers on this issue who have indicated to me that there is a provincial jurisdiction and that there is room for provincial action in this area.

I see the member for Durham East shaking his head. I assume that means he disagrees with me, but it's so rare a thing, I'm shocked to see it. I'm sure the member for Durham East will show me his constitutional law degree in support of his conclusion. But I'm not a constitutional law lawyer and won't claim to be.

Interjection: You're an expert at everything, Gord.

Mr Murphy: Yes, the member for Durham East is an expert in most things, but I have talked to constitutional law lawyers and they indicate to me there is room for provincial action.

I want to say at this time that obviously we are debating this now to a certain degree because of that sense of random violence that has been connected to the unfortunate shooting in Ottawa and the unfortunate shooting in Toronto at the Just Desserts café. But while those focus much of public attention, it's not the only circumstance where those kinds of criminal shootings and criminal activities have occurred. There are many other circumstances which are continuing on a daily basis. As I think I indicated in the House the other day, between July and December 1993, 51 Division had 460 weapons offences. That's a shocking statistic to me, one which I think we need to do something about.

Finally, in the few seconds left to me, I want to repeat a message that I've mentioned before, that it's important that we as legislators understand that what we are trying to do is make communities safe for everyone. I think that, for example, in the last few weeks being a black youth in Toronto is a very difficult thing because of the way in which the issue played out. I want to express my sympathy, of course, to the family of Georgina Leimonis, but I think also that we have to ensure we don't add to the tension that's created, but that we say we're trying to make the city safe for everyone in it.

I hope the government members and the Conservative members, including the always temperate member for Leeds-Grenville, will vote in favour of it.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's a privilege for me this morning to have the opportunity to say a few words on second reading of Bill 151.

I think every member of this Legislature will agree that we must find a way to stem the illegal trade of weapons and ammunition. A concerted effort must be made to prevent violent crimes and so provide safe streets and communities for the citizens of Ontario once again.

Under the leadership of Mike Harris, the Conservative Party has developed a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of crime and safety. Earlier this year, our party released a third edition of New Directions covering crime, justice and community safety. We are not doing something at the last minute on this subject. As my colleague from Leeds pointed out, we have been working with this task force going across the province of Ontario for almost a year and we have now compiled what I would suggest every member should read, volume three of our New Directions covering this subject.

In this policy book, we put before the people recommendations that will reduce crime, restore the rights of victims and make our streets safe. In our town hall meetings across the province, we listened to the people and we acted upon their advice. The people of Ontario told us that one of the best ways to reduce crime is through greater community involvement. This means giving the community an active stake in making their neighbourhoods safe. It is through community participation that we can find real solutions to the real problems of violent crime and the fear it generates.

Through this initiative, members of the community voluntarily buy into the notion of reducing the number of guns on our streets. This is the kind of initiative that will work.

This bill, however, does nothing to target the illegal weapons and ammunition trade. By making it illegal to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card, we will be bolstering the underground arms business. Those who have legitimate uses for ammunition will be forced to look to the underground market.

By trying to capture some headlines, the Liberal Party has sensationalized a serious issue and put forward a bill that is ineffective and ill-inspired. I wonder if the member for Renfrew North thought he was truly representing his constituents when he stood in this Legislature and railed against the freedom to purchase ammunition.

To force sporting gun users to acquire an Outdoors Card when they do not want to hunt is a ridiculous proposition. I have a letter here, that's been circulated, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"This bill, as drafted, will further restrict the legal law-abiding firearms owner but does little to address the illegal trade and traffic in firearms from the United States. Many federation members and other firearm owners do not possess either of these documents, yet remain law-abiding, safe firearm owners and users. Provisions must be made to allow target shooters, legal handgun shooters and those who use firearms to control predators and nuisance animals to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card or an FAC. At a minimum, a restricted weapons permit issued by the chief provincial firearms office must also be accepted as documentation."

I have many other reports here that I would like to read in, but the time is going by and I have other members who would like to speak on this.

In closing, I want to point out to the member introducing this bill that this is not a provincial jurisdiction. Violations in the purchase of ammunition are federal offenses. It would be an offence for the provincial government to set the fines which are in this legislation. We do not, as a provincial government, have the right to set these fines. It's a federal jurisdiction.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to be able to stand in my place this morning and speak to the bill of my colleague across the floor.

I find it absolutely regrettable and repulsive that the member for Leeds-Grenville would interject and introduce some wild, partisan, neo-right-wing, Harris police state philosophy to the discussion here this morning.

We are here, I believe, as legislators -- and it crosses all party lines -- to do the best that we possibly can to reduce the crime, to reduce the tragedies that happen across this wonderful province of Ontario. For someone to get up and make some sort of political statement is absolutely -- and I use this often, but it really fits today -- diabolical, to introduce that statement.

If we talk about the Mike Harris strategy of dealing with crime with his crime force, I just would like to look at the statistics in the United States. They have built more prisons in an effort to contain their crime. It doesn't work. The crime in the United States, the number of killings with guns, is absolutely out of control and they have not contained this one little bit, although they insist on building more prisons and more facilities to lock people up from society. It doesn't work.

Let's turn to the other neo-right-wing group they're trying to copy, the Reagan administration. We all saw what happened in the United States with the social programs, the cutting of the welfare and all those things. This is also a social issue, dealing with this crime. We saw on television the riots in Los Angeles, and heaven forbid if Ontario is heading into that way of thinking.

To get back to the bill which my colleague has issued, I'd just like to point out certain facts that probably we should understand.

First of all, I'd like to say that pursuant to sections 1 and 5 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the permit to sell ammunition is issued by the office of the chief provincial firearms officer, which is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. Subsection 110(11) of the Criminal Code allows for reasonable conditions to be placed on ammunition permits, and

section 94 of the Criminal Code prohibits the sale of ammunition to a person who is of unsound mind, impaired by alcohol or drugs, or prohibited by the courts from possessing ammunition.

There are no further controls on ammunition sales under the Criminal Code. However, regulations under the federal Explosives Act prohibit the sale of ammunition to a person under the age of 16 unless that person has a permit under

section 110(6) of the Criminal Code to possess firearms for the purpose of hunting as a way of life.

The control of the sale of ammunition, therefore, would appear -- and I'm not a constitutional lawyer as my colleague from St George-St David suggested; I have a life experience of a lot of things, but that's not one of them -- it would appear that the sale of ammunition will be a matter pertaining to criminal law, which falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

It would also likewise appear that any legislative action to further control the sale of ammunition has to be taken at the federal level. It's my understanding that a legal opinion is at this time being sought from the constitutional law

section to see whether or not the province can pass any legislation at all in this area.

I just want to say that I endorse what the member said. I think we should do everything we can to stop this carnage in Ontario. If we have to get a program where we can get the arms so they can't be stolen, like an amnesty, we should do it. We should do what we can about the ammunition. We should do all we can in our power, and all parties, to make Ontario safe, to make our people safe and to take this frightful situation off the street.

In Canada, in Ontario, tragedies involving handguns continue, and we can't reduce that tragedy overnight, because most of the tragedies that happen are caused by unsafe usage of firearms, and we have statistics to support that.

But believe you me, I stand in my place supportive of any measure that we can do across non-partisan policies and positions to stop this sort of carnage that's happening in this wonderful province of Ontario that we all live in.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I would just like to indicate my full support for this particular piece of legislation. It is clear, as has been brought out numerous times, that when these tragedies in our communities occur many times they are as a result of the use of illegal guns, and certainly I support any measure which takes illegal guns off the streets.

But in all cases, the use of those illegal guns is with legally purchased ammunition. This is a piece of legislation which would go miles in terms of making certain that there is a restriction on who can purchase ammunition, and it is clear that the passage of this bill will make our communities safer.

I would implore all members of this Legislature to support this legislation as one which is in the best interests of our communities in making them safer and more secure.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have a chance to place a few comments on the record about this bill today,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition, which has been brought before us for consideration by the member for Ottawa West. If passed, private member's Bill 151 would restrict the sale of ammunition to only those with a valid Outdoors Card, with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate.

What about the farmers out there, and the natives who don't have the Outdoors Card? What about the target shooters? What about the biathlon people who are involved in sports? While I support this bill in principle, I have some reservations with regard to the very intent and the purpose of the bill. I believe this bill was introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to the recent murder of a young woman in a Toronto restaurant, the recent drive-by killing of an innocent passerby in Ottawa and the recent slaying of a university student in Hamilton.

The call for gun control is being led by the power media in these large urban communities. The responsible, gun-owning residents of small, rural communities are being swept up in the media-generated hype.

In a recent column in the Orillia Packet and Times, Jack Marshall, the former publisher of the Orillia daily newspaper, said, "Guns Are Toronto's Problems, Not Ours." Mr Marshall says: "Typically and predictably the only call the federal justice people are listening to is for more gun control. They are too frightened to contemplate greater penalties against criminals or greater police enforcement. So they go after the guns." Mr Marshall says, "We must send them to prison for long terms...."

In the articles I have read in the newspapers with regard to this bill, Mr Allan Rock, who is the Justice minister, indicates, "No Crime Crisis in Canada." This is the federal Liberal Justice minister saying that crime is not a problem, that society is still safe. Yet his own mother and father are telling him to do something about what they perceive as a less safe society.

The letter of the day in the Toronto Sun says, "The Honourable Allan Rock can enact the handgun prohibition he favours and follow in the footsteps of Washington, DC, which banned the possession and sale of handguns in 1977." Yet in that very state there's been a 20% increase, and firearm robberies have increased by 96%. To say that to limit the amount of shells and people who can buy them is going to solve the problem will not do it.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Certainly violence and victims of crime are uppermost in everyone's mind today and have been for the last little while. This is a complex issue that we on all sides of the House must work together to address. It affects all of us.

Just last week, the mother of a murder victim spoke to a group of women in my city of Niagara Falls. For many years I have been involved with a feminist group in my city that is concerned about the causes of violence against women. One that they have been working on this past year is the effect of pornography. Certainly, there are a lot of factors contributing to this frightening violence that we are experiencing.

Attitudes of inequality are one of them. While women are unequal they will be victims. That's why such initiatives as employment equity, economic equality and political equality, having more women here in this House, will go towards that end.

Let me state the obvious: Women are victims of violence in our society and the use of guns is largely male. There are no easy answers, there are no quick solutions. Access to guns and ammunition is one avenue to pursue. That is why I will support this bill. We must look at the whole justice system. I am asking for justice for women.

Our justice committee, which I sit on in this Legislature, has been working on a report over the last six months or more and some of the recommendations of that report are that victims be more aware of support services, that victims encounter long delays when being awarded compensation, that victims are not notified when offenders are released on parole and that victims do not have adequate counselling for court appearances. I could go on and on.

We must not use, as the Niagara Falls Review has said when speaking about the member for St Catharines, any opportunistic, political gamesmanship. This issue is far too serious. Our society in Ontario has been, and strives to be, a model to the whole world of living together with respect and tolerance. Our society is very precious to us.

I ask all members to look very carefully and to evaluate very carefully every possible solution to this complex problem. I want us to act here in this Legislature in a most responsible way, and I also want us to encourage and address the federal level. We know that they are involved, that we cannot do it alone, but we must do our part and we must lead the way.

One other item I might draw to your attention was in the Niagara Falls Review this past weekend, and it talks about a program called the victim-offender reconciliation program, in which the accused stands not only before a judge but stands before the victim to answer to the crime.

I ask all of us in this House to work together and to look at all avenues by which to address this very serious concern.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I believe that the debate in the Legislature this morning on the bill that has been presented is an important debate. It is a part of the efforts of people in this Legislature over recent weeks to address what are very real concerns among people in our cities, people in communities across this province about the increased level of violence and their anxieties about the safety of our communities.

As we have raised these concerns in the Legislature repeatedly over recent weeks, I think we have all agreed that it is extremely important for legislators at all levels of government of all parties to be ready and willing to respond to the kinds of concerns and the kinds of anxieties that people in our communities are feeling.

We have asked the government if it would refer the issues of how we can deal more effectively with safety in our communities, with the safety of our streets, to the standing committee on justice issues so that we can indeed, as thoughtful and concerned legislators, discuss the issues, the many issues that have to be dealt with if we are going to provide that reassurance to people about the safety of our communities.

We would agree that this bill that is before the Legislature this morning is but one step in responding to what is a truly complex problem. But it is essential that we be prepared, clearly prepared, to act and to act in a way which is going to be effective, and that is why we present the bill in the Legislature this morning and that is why we urge the support of all parties for this bill, as one step in responding to those very legitimate concerns and very heightened anxieties that people are feeling right now.

This bill is but one step in dealing with a very complex problem. I was more than a little surprised to come into the House to speak to the bill and hear a member of the third party referring to it as a knee-jerk reaction. I simply don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction to be ready and willing to respond to varied concerns, very real concerns that people have.

Members of the third party are suggesting it's a Band-Aid reaction, and again, no one would pretend, would claim, that this one step is sufficient to address all the concerns that we have about violence and about crime. All of us would agree that it's a complex problem but that, again, we need to be prepared to take specific steps to respond to it.

We present this bill because we have discovered that as we talk about issues of gun control, as we talk about issues of dealing with the Young Offenders Act, there is absolutely no regulation, no restriction in the province of Ontario on who can buy bullets for guns. Under existing legislation, even somebody who is in possession of an illegal gun is able to buy ammunition legally, and that just simply does not make sense.

As we are more and more concerned about the incidence of gun-related crimes, as we recognize that greater gun control has to be one of the responses to the concern about gun-related crime, surely regulating the bullets that go into those guns has to be part of the action that we're prepared to take. It just does not make sense that people can use store-bought bullets in illegal guns, and this bill will limit the sale of ammunition to people who are legally entitled to own a firearm.

The bill clearly speaks to the ability to regulate this without a great additional bureaucracy, without costs, without difficulty to people who own legal firearms, because it would be possible to buy ammunition, for those who are legally able to own a firearm, by presenting a firearm certificate or an Outdoors Card. So this is relatively easy to implement.

Again I say that obviously the bill alone will not deal with the problem of violent crime, it will not deal with the proliferation of guns on our streets. We recognize that the problem with gun-related crime is indeed illegal weapons, illegal guns, and that there is going to have to be a very active effort to deal with the possession of illegal guns, with the smuggling of guns into the province and into the country. We also know that we're going to have to make a very concerted effort to deal not with just being tougher on crime after it has been committed, but to deal with crime prevention.

The member for Niagara Falls has spoken about a particular concern with increased violence that she brings, and that is violence against women. We share that as one of the concerns we have about increased violence in our communities. We have presented a number of very specific resolutions that we believe would be part of responding to the concern about increased violence against women.

We have urged that there be a regulation on the distribution and sale of killer cards. We have urged that this government take action to deal with the availability of slasher films, which we believe incite violence against women. We urged last week in the Legislature that there be action taken to put in place a central registry for dangerous offenders. We believe this would be one more step in ensuring that our communities and our streets are safer.

We all have to sit down and talk about all the responses that have to be made if we are in fact to do what is necessary to provide for greater safety in our communities.

I am gratified by the fact that the federal government clearly recognizes the urgency of this issue. I had an opportunity yesterday to meet with the federal Justice minister, and he is clearly prepared to take action on the issues of the Young Offenders Act and gun control and, as well, to go beyond that and talk about how at all levels of government we can work to bring about, in an integrated way, a focus on crime prevention, because he recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach.

He is also prepared to look at whether or not there is a federal application of the bill which we present before the provincial Legislature today so that in fact it may be possible to regulate the sale of ammunition across the country. We believe that would also be a very positive step forward.

In the meantime, we have before us a piece of legislation which allows us as a provincial Legislature to take a clear and decisive step to assure people that we are ready to deal with their concerns. I would urge the members of this Legislature to recognize that this is a positive step, to be prepared to support it and to be prepared then to sit down in committee and discuss what more we can do to respond to what has clearly become an increased concern of people in communities across the province of Ontario.

We would urge that there be support for the legislation that's before the House today. We would urge that there be further discussion in committee as to how this legislation can be proceeded with as quickly as possible so that it can be enacted into law. We would urge as well that the government act very quickly on a referral of concerns for violence and for crime and for the safety of our communities to the standing committee on justice issues so that other steps can be considered and can be acted on very quickly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time to speak on this ill-conceived, Band-Aid approach by the Liberals on a very serious concern. This concern is great, I know, but the Liberals just have a Band-Aid approach to it. What they're really doing is hurting the citizens who are honest.

What they're doing is attacking rural Ontario. What they should be doing is getting tough on criminals, not worrying about a Band-Aid approach which won't solve anything. If they think this will stop the criminals from getting bullets, they're really misguided and don't know what they're talking about.

Also, I have a letter from our Tourism critic. "What about from the sports angle? Biathlon athletes who are under 18 years of age may have more difficulty in practising their sport because they won't be able to get bullets." They won't have an Outdoors Card. They won't have a hunting card; they don't hunt.

This is a really ill-conceived bill by the Liberals just to gain some publicity.

The Deputy Speaker: There are 19 seconds, member for Durham West.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise simply to commend the member opposite for bringing forth this bill and to say that while it is important to bring up this discussion, I am very shocked to hear of the opposition to this issue. It's an important issue regarding violence in our community.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North, you have 57 seconds.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to add my support to this bill. It is of extreme importance. Take away the partisan point of view and talk about a community that needs to be safe for children, for families. As our leader, Lyn McLeod, stated, this is a start. Of course this is not going to resolve all the crime within our community; it's a start. It's extremely important that we lend support to this, and if it is short in some respects, that all members of the House add their support in respect to having a safe community. We are extremely concerned and we shall not play football with it.

We just hope, for the safety of our children, our families, our wives, our husbands, whoever they are, that we proceed with this bill to have a safe community.

Mr Chiarelli: I was quite surprised at the response of the member for Leeds-Grenville. It was extremely partisan, and there seemed to be a tenor that the Progressive Conservative Party owns this issue. Well, the people of Canada and the people of Ontario own this issue, and they will be very angry with elected officials who try to make this a partisan issue and take ownership of it.

I respect the Conservative Party for having conducted its task force and for its bill of rights, but people don't want task forces any more, they don't want bills of rights any more. They want governments to act to make our communities safer.

I would encourage the third party, the Conservative Party, to take a more non-partisan tack with this particular bill. Indeed, if the member for Leeds-Grenville wants to put his name in place of mine or Mr Murphy's on the bill, let him be my guest, and we'll go and debate his bill. But action is required.

With respect to the member for Lanark-Renfrew, he talks about illegal import of arms. The association of hunters and anglers talks about the importation of illegal arms. They're absolutely right: The federal government has to take action in these particular areas.

But when they speak of this bill being a knee-jerk reaction, maybe there's a knee-jerk reaction on the other side. When anybody in Ontario wants to go for an X-ray or to visit a doctor, they have to show a card. All we're saying now is if they want to go and buy bullets, which can kill people and be put in illegal guns, we want them to show a card. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction is the person who doesn't want to try to make our communities safer by identifying themselves and their weapons when they buy bullets.

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE / LOCATAIRES SUR L'AIDE SOCIALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 49, standing in the name of Mr Bisson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Bisson has moved private member's resolution number 38. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 50, standing in the name of Mr Chiarelli. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 151,

An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition.

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

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, I believe a majority of the members wish Bill 151 referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: The standing committee on justice.

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

The majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member for Ottawa West, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on justice.

All the private members' business issues have been debated. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Tuesday evening I attended a town hall meeting in Sudbury to discuss the crisis in health care in that city and in northeastern Ontario. The main problem seems to be that, while Sudbury is recognized as the health care centre for northeastern Ontario, the government doesn't seem to be willing to put the resources into Sudbury to get the job done.

There are several reasons this is happening. One is that the Ministry of Health is using inaccurate data to make these health care decisions. The ministry insists that Sudbury has 145 full-time, active general practitioners in the district. This would more than meet the established standards, but in actual fact there are only 79 GPs in Sudbury.

The ministry in its list lumps in specialists, full-time emergency doctors, retirees, part-timers, PG trainees and others. I find this incredible, but that is what the ministry has done. Therefore, there are from 8,000 to 12,000 people in the Sudbury region without a family physician.

Not only are waiting lists for doctors growing, but the doctors who are there are burning out and leaving at an alarming rate. Because of the inaccurate data, the ministry will not declare the Sudbury area an underserviced area, which would provide incentives for more doctors to locate there.

There is also a shortage of specialists, and that is causing a six- to eight-month waiting time compared to 30 days in southern Ontario. The catch here is that the rules of the health travel program prevent a patient being referred to southern Ontario if there is the appropriate specialist in the north. Therefore, patients in northeastern Ontario are being denied timely access to specialized physicians.

This is a serious problem. It's not only affecting the people in Sudbury but those in all of northeastern Ontario, the 600,000 people who call northern Ontario their home.

EARTH DAY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Tomorrow communities across Ontario, Canada and 91 countries around the world will be celebrating Earth Day in their communities. Earth Day has become an opportunity for individuals and businesses to look at what they are doing for the environment and what steps could be taken to improve the situation.

Businesses normally are pointed at as major abusers of our environment. I am pleased to be able to announce that many of our corporate partners have acted in a proactive way to ensure that Ontarians are given an opportunity to help the environment and save our valuable resources.

The Ontario brewing industry has been committed to reuse since 1927 when it offered customers their first two-four of refillable beer bottles. Through the Beer Store, consumers are returning over 90% of their beverage containers for reuse.

The notable part of these initiatives is that the Ontario brewing industry has made these moves without government legislation or regulation. The people of Ontario have chosen to return their containers because of the cost advantage to do so and because it gives us an opportunity to do something positive for the environment, not because Big Brother will fine us or take away our right to drink beer.

Environmental initiatives such as the one initiated by the Ontario brewing industry work, and work well, because they are initiated by the industry, supported through positive advertising campaigns by the industry and supported by consumers. The old adage of, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink," rings true when it comes to the government trying to force society to change in a way it is uncomfortable with.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to use my 90 seconds today to speak about the upcoming celebrations to recognize the 50th anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, the Allied Forces landed on the European mainland in one of the most brilliantly conceived and almost faultlessly executed offensives in the history of modern warfare.

Here in Toronto plans are in the process to recognize D-Day in an unforgettable manner. A parade featuring over 1,500 veterans will march from Nathan Phillips Square to Union Station where the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, His Honour Hal Jackman, and the Premier of the province of Ontario, the Honourable Bob Rae, will take the salute.

A fly-past of vintage aircraft and a drive-past of vintage military vehicles will also be part of these celebrations. The parade will culminate at Ontario Place at HMCS Haida, followed by a concert in the Forum at Ontario Place.

I urge all veterans watching today to keep Sunday, June 5, 1994, open on their calendar. I also encourage them to come to Toronto and be part of the celebrations. More details of this event will unfold nearer the day, and they will be announced in time to ensure the maximum participation by all.

EARTH DAY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise today to commemorate a very important occasion that is going to be taking place not only all this week but especially tomorrow. What I am speaking to is Earth Week, and tomorrow marks the 24th anniversary of Earth Day, an internationally recognized event which provides all of us with an opportunity to renew our commitment to protecting and preserving the natural environment today and for future generations.

To celebrate Earth Day thousands of people in Ontario will be taking

part in a variety of events: tree planting activities, green marches and the cleanup of park areas.

Earth Day, and this Earth Week, is important. It is a time where we rededicate ourselves to the maintenance and improvement of our environment. Community groups, business groups, school children, all will be taking a vibrant and vital

part in recognizing Earth Day through a myriad of exciting events.

Earth Day allows us to specifically recognize the importance of our environment but also to remember that our environment requires a commitment not only for one day of the year but indeed for every day of each year. It is a commitment that is shared by all. I would like to congratulate all who are going to be taking

part in Earth Day tomorrow and celebrating this Earth Week.

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Congratulations to the city of North York for launching the economic development campaign Open for Business. North York understands the need to work with the business community to create a favourable climate for economic growth, jobs and increased assessment.

The borough of East York has encouraged economic development and job creation by eliminating all planning and development charges for industrial and commercial development and renovation. The public demands government that is more efficient but less costly and less bureaucratic.

Therefore, it is with regret that I consider the municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton region, which with the passage of Bill 143 will lose the fundamental right to direct their economic development.

But this is not the only failure of this bill. It will take away local representation from the regional government, including the local mayors, thereby establishing a government structure susceptible to confrontation. It will cause the loss of community-based policing.

Most important, the government has provided no financial analysis or evidence to demonstrate that the new government and the new police structure will save money or use tax dollars more efficiently. Indeed, those who were permitted to speak, before closure silenced all voices, indicated their overwhelming concern that the government cost would escalate.

No pricetag, no answers. Welcome, Ottawa-Carleton, to Bob Rae's Ontario.

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today with an invitation for all members of this Legislature and all individuals who enjoy hockey and wish to support a worthy cause. Tonight the Ontario Legiskaters will play hockey against the Carpenters Union Local 27, with all proceeds going to the Children's Wish Foundation of Canada.

The Ontario Legiskaters is a non-partisan team that has travelled to various areas in this province to assist in fund-raising events. These games are thoroughly enjoyed by all individuals who attend. It provides communities with an opportunity to meet not only their local MPP but also MPPs from across the province. MPPs are also given the opportunity to travel into their colleagues' ridings.

I encourage all of my colleagues to come out and support a worthy cause and to have fun doing it. I extend this invitation to everyone in the Toronto and surrounding area, the members of the press gallery and individuals of the Legislative Assembly. We look forward to seeing all of you there.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of the individuals who have worked so hard to make this event such a success: Maggie Yen from the Carpenters Union Local 27 training centre and Barb Dolan from my office.

Speaker, I encourage you and everyone else to come out and join our fund-raising efforts this evening. We are fortunate that the Maple Leafs played and won last evening so we are not in competition with their game this evening. Rather than spending an evening without hockey, come out and enjoy our game. The game is being played tonight at 7 pm at St Michael's Arena, 1515 Bathurst Street at St Clair Avenue.

Thank you, Speaker. We'll see you at the game.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Yesterday in the House of Commons federal Justice minister Allan Rock tabled draft legislation to prohibit the sale and distribution of serial killer trading cards to children under the age of 18 years.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, it is a good thing that the federal Liberal government has taken action to protect the women and children of this province, because we certainly can't count on the Ontario government or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to act on our behalf.

Members are aware that last July, almost one year ago, I introduced a private member's bill to ban the sale of these hideous cards to our children in Ontario. Since that time, the only thing we have heard from Minister Marilyn Churley is excuses as to why she can't take action. She told us she had no jurisdiction to control retail sales. Imagine this coming from a minister who had no authority to regulate casinos but did not hesitate to use that power.

The minister had the power to enact legislation on serial killer trading cards; she just didn't have the will. The minister could have taken jurisdiction, just like her government has done in countless other areas. Instead she chose to opt out of protecting the interests of the children of this province.

The issue of combating violence is too important to get sidetracked by intergovernmental disputes over who has jurisdiction. We must all work together and take responsibility. I urge the minister to take responsibility for combating violence against women and children in this province.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Last night I had the pleasure of attending a volunteer appreciation dinner at which the Victoria County Association for Community Living and Victoria County Community Care honoured some very special citizens from my riding.

These individuals have demonstrated their commitment to total community citizenship through the many caring tasks they perform for the good of others. Volunteers play a proactive role in assisting people with developmental handicaps, seniors and special-needs clients of all ages to participate fully in community life.

Volunteers from these two associations are responsible for numerous important tasks, including providing companionship to elderly in their homes, a diners' club, one-on-one support, recreation and leisure activities, providing transportation and delivering meals on wheels.

Volunteerism is not a job; it's a commitment. The people I saw being honoured last night do the work they do because they truly enjoy it and each and every one of them is committed to serving others.

In these difficult economic times, and especially with government funding becoming more and more scarce, it is encouraging to see people freely sharing their time, experience and patience with others.

I would also like to recognize the generosity of the Moose Lodge in Lindsay for donating 275 dinners for last night's celebration.

I'm happy to say that compassion and caring for others and community pride are all alive and well in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I rise today to speak about taming a killer. I am referring to the infamous killer highway, the stretch of Highway 6 between Highways 403 and 401. Since 1989, as a result of over 200 accidents, at least 21 people have died and dozens more have been injured in the 24-kilometre stretch of highway each year. During that five-year span, all 21 fatalities were caused by human error. Of course, speeding was the number one cause.

In the very near future photo-radar will become a reality on Ontario's 400-series highways. The project is designed to save lives, reduce injuries and cut the cost of collisions each year in this province. It has been proven to reduce speeding and fatalities in other jurisdictions around the world. In Australia, for example, fatalities had been reduced by 30% three years after the technology was introduced.

In an attempt to tame the killer, I ask the Minister of Transportation to consider extending the use of photo-radar to the deadly stretch of highway on Highway 6. The killer highway has carved its notoriety with a heavy hand. We have the tools to reduce the number of accidents and deaths. We have to act responsibly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today I'd like to tell the House about our second annual Health Economic Development Week, which began on Monday. This is the week we spotlight one of the most promising sectors of the Ontario economy, our health industry sector, a sector that employs 40,000 Ontarians who manufacture and provide health care products and services.

The timing for Health Economic Development Week couldn't be better, because just last month the health industry's advisory committee submitted to me a sector development strategy. This strategy, called Healthy and Wealthy: A Growth Prescription for Ontario's Health Industries, outlines a plan for economic growth and job creation. I'm impressed with the strategy's forward-looking and creative attitude towards economic development and I can tell the House that my enthusiasm is shared by my cabinet colleagues.

That's why I'm happy to tell you today -- and, I might add, in record time -- that the government will be proceeding with many of the committee's recommendations. Growth and job creation in the health industries sector is a high priority for this government, and I will soon have other announcements to make on the specific details for implementing the advisory committee's strategy.

The members of the advisory committee contributed a great deal of time and effort to develop the health industries strategy. It's a joint effort of four industries: pharmaceutical, medical devices, biotechnology and private health services. In addition, labour, medical researchers, health care providers and health care consumers are on the committee.

I'd like to introduce to the House some of the members of the advisory committee who are here in the gallery today and allow members to thank them for their hard work.

Bill Blundell chaired the committee and is the former CEO and chairman of General Electric Canada and currently the chair of the Wellesley Hospital. Glenn Buchanan, national representative of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, represented labour. Gerry Turner of Mount Sinai Hospital, Ed Rygiel of MDS and Hans Kunov of the University of Toronto are also members of the committee. I'm sure members would want to acknowledge the work they've done for the province.

Applause.

Hon Mrs Grier: The advisory committee has many innovative initiatives. These include plans to increase Ontario exports. The global market for health sector products and services will be more than $500 million -- $500 billion; I get my letters wrong -- by the end of the decade. Ontario's share of this market is much too small and explains why Canada has a trade deficit in health products of more than $2 billion. We need and can do better and, as the report points out, there is no reason why we can't.

The companies that are taking

part in Health Economic Development Week range in size from 25 employees to 5,900. To help kick off the week, on Monday I visited the headquarters of MDS Health Group Ltd. At MDS I untied a ribbon to celebrate its 25th anniversary. MDS is not only an exporter of medical supplies to more than 100 countries; it's also an important provider of venture capital to new companies and new technologies. And MDS employs 5,900 people.

I also visited Livingston Healthcare Services, where I saw an important new paperless system for reducing hospital inventory costs.

Tomorrow I'll be at three more companies: Astra Pharma, a gro