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

March 28, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DISABILITY INSURANCE

Mr Beer moved resolution 7:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should introduce legislation during its current mandate to implement a universal disability insurance program; and further, that this legislation should be preceded by a province-wide consultation process initiated before the end of June 1991 and based on a published public consultation document laying out policy options for the management and reform of the current compensation and benefit system.

Mr Beer: I am very pleased this morning to be able to present this motion that will I believe see within this decade a comprehensive, universal disability program or scheme for all of the people of the province, if we can begin and move quickly to start the process of implementation.

I was interested as I was doing some work on this particular resolution to see the number of studies and reviews that have been carried out of this particular issue. Most recently, members will recall that in the report entitled Transitions, Judge Thomson and the Social Assistance Review Committee indicated that this was one of the areas where it was very important for the province of Ontario to move. After the election in 1987, I came across a piece by the now Premier, and then Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to quote it because it speaks very directly to this idea of creating a comprehensive disability insurance system.

He said in his remarks in November 1987: "yet it is an idea whose time has obviously come," the creation of this kind of program. "It is clearly an idea that will allow for the compensation and rehabilitation of people who right now are not being compensated adequately and are not being given the kind of rehabilitation, the kind of help they need. I think it is fair to say," he went on, "it is an idea that makes the same kind of sense as workers' compensation itself did" when it was brought in in 1915.

I could not agree more with the Premier in the remarks that he made in 1987 and I would like, in my comments this morning, to set out why I believe we need this kind of a program, second, to talk about several examples that have come to my attention in my own constituency, and third, to talk about the process that I am suggesting we might enter into if all members can see fit to support this resolution.

I think that when we look at the problem, it is interesting to note all of the different programs that currently exist through the federal and provincial governments. It is kind of an alphabet soup, if you want, a sort of patchwork quilt, whatever kind of metaphor you would like to choose. The Canada pension plan is involved; you can receive disability help there. There are the provincial guaranteed annual income system disability allowance and the general welfare system. Private long-term-care plans exist. There are the Workers' Compensation Board, the Ontario motorist protection plan, unemployment insurance for illness, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and veterans' allowances.

All of these kinds of programs exist. They were created for real and good reasons and they do, in their own way, anywhere from perhaps an adequate to a good job of trying to provide help to our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own -- illness and some form of disability -- require help.

The difficulty that everyone who has looked at this issue sees is that it is not connected, it does not all fit together. Increasingly, in report after report, governments have been asked at both the federal and the provincial levels to find some way to try to bring this together and to have a comprehensive plan which is going to ensure that people, wherever they are injured or whatever the source of the illness, are not going to be left poor and on, I suppose, the kind of heap of society where they can get very little help, and if they have families are unable to support them in an adequate way.

What are the specific problems then that this system, if you like, this patchwork quilt leaves us with? For one thing, it is the incompleteness of the coverage. We have to look at where the person received the disability. Was it at work? Was it off work? Was it in an automobile? When we do that, we see that there is a great deal of variety in what the possibility might be in terms of help that you may receive or, in fact, that you may not receive at all, and that your only resource may be going on the welfare system.

What about the benefit levels? Again, those vary dramatically. In a debate that was held in this House some two and a half years ago, when our colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, now Minister of Housing, introduced a similar motion, it was noted that in several case examples where people had exactly the same kind of disability, the benefits they received were very different and clearly there was not a situation of equity and fairness.

We need to look at benefit levels and ensure it is not just the cause of the disability or where it happened, but in fact what is the end result and what does that person require in order to be able to lead a full life. So the uneven, inadequate benefits; the benefit levels in terms of what program they are under; the lack of cost-effectiveness.

One of the other problems is that we have a variety of bureaucracies that are set up to administer these programs. There can be a great deal of overlap and when we look at the millions and, indeed, billions of dollars that we are spending in this country in some way or other to protect people, I think we have to look at how can we do that in a more effective way so that the money is going to the people who need it.

Finally, the kinds of services for disabled vary dramatically by program. People need help and that help should not depend on the kind of program that they are eligible for.

When I was looking at that particular issue, I was struck by an example of someone who had been to my constituency office in the fall. Her husband was in a wheelchair, and he had been able to get help for the purchase of the wheelchair and for a variety of other devices only so long as he was physically able to propel himself to make the wheelchair move. But as time went on and his disability became worse and he was no longer able to move the wheelchair on his own, through his own power, he then was no longer eligible to receive assistance under that program.

Now, clearly, that does not make sense, and if members have not already had cases like this, I can assure them that over the next few years they will, and you sit there very frustrated in terms of knowing how to help.

Another example, again in York region: A family, Mr and Mrs Jones, with two children, where both were hurt, and the catch-22 situation was that when Mr Jones's work -- he was a labourer and he was not getting as much work because of the recession, but he was still making enough money that Mrs Jones was unable to get any assistance. This was having a dramatic impact on their own lives and their children's, and their children were now showing up requiring counselling and assistance within the school system.

When we looked at both of those cases, the people were straightforward, they were honest, they were not trying to rip off the system, but the system simply did not work for them. They fell between the cracks. I think the intent of this is to ensure that those kinds of problems will not continue to exist, that we can develop a system which will meet all of the needs regardless of where it happened or what the nature of the illness or disability is.

How do we go forward in trying to bring together this hodgepodge of different programs and set it into something complete? The former government, of which I was a member, had begun a fairly involved piece of work around this very issue, and indeed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics had been asked to begin preparing issues and options. I think the Treasurer would certainly know, and other members might be interested in finding out, exactly how far that work had advanced.

It is because of that that I believe, in the three months from now until the end of June, there is plenty of time to take all of that work and put it into a kind of green paper consultation document, issues and options, and to initiate a process.

Not that that will be completed -- obviously it will not -- but the government can determine whether perhaps to give this issue to a select committee, to a standing committee, to a task force or even to set up a royal commission, because in the work that we were doing, we had plotted out that it would take approximately a year and a half to two years to complete that consultation process, which would still leave within the mandate of the present government to develop legislation that could then come to this House before the end of 1994.

There is urgency to this because as I said before, when we look at comments that we have all made in this House around these problems, we have been struck by the need to move on this issue. It is required, it is needed, it is doable, and there is an opportunity that is presented to us now to ensure that this goes forward.

I think in the normal course of events, I would hope that all members could see fit not only to accept the principle that is set forth in this motion, but also to accept that the time frame is reasonable, that a consultation document can be prepared and sent out within three months, and that what is being asked here is simply to initiate a process of broad public consultation that will take a good period of time to make sure that we hear from everybody.

In the final analysis, we will be helping the ordinary people of this province so that when they are injured or become ill, whether it is at work, at home, in the car or wherever, there will be in place a system that will ensure that they receive adequate and proper compensation.

I will be reserving some time for later.

Mr Carr: I want to compliment the member for taking the time to put together this resolution. I will speak on it very briefly.

I guess like a lot of us we have a lot of questions and I guess that is why we are going to be talking about doing some consulting on it. I think that is a good idea. Questions such as how much it will cost and how much it is going to cost to administer it I think come to mind. I think all members of this House know the WCB situation that is out there. Quite literally, our offices can spend up to half their days dealing with those problems. So anything that would work to improve the system I think would be very worth while.

The big question is, how does that get incorporated, and with that system not working well, how would this system improve it? I think, as members know, labour groups and business and everybody believes that there should be a lot of room for improvement with workers' compensation right now. So I guess the big question that would have to be asked as part of this consultation is, how is it going to work? We have all heard the gut-wrenching situations that come before us as a result of the workers' compensation program, and how we tackle that over the next little while is going to be a very critical question.

Again, I guess, as the Treasurer reminds us, the big question is one of timing. We are now in a situation where we have a $3-billion deficit, and it may be higher. It would be interesting to see exactly how this would affect it. Would it be, as the member says, where we would eliminate a lot of the overlap and the patchwork and the duplication? If that was the case I think it would be good, but we must spell out very clearly how that would work, particularly in light of the financial situation that the province is in at this particular time.

I think one thing to bear in mind, though, is that you can right now get disability insurance on your own, although it is a fairly costly program and I think most people do not go and do it. I guess insurance is like anything else; you never think about it until you need it, other than auto insurance, which is fairly high-profile now. So it would be interesting to see how that would affect the private sector that is now providing some of the disability insurance and how we are going to have some of the programs work with our private sector.

Many of us have worked in industry where we got disability insurance, and how we are going to incorporate that is going to be very difficult. Do those programs die as a result of this? Would it really be cheaper?

We are talking about a very complex situation. Because quite frankly, other than by talking to my wife, I did not realize that we sometimes do have disability insurance. When you start with a job, you do not get a chance sometimes to read all the brochures and so on, and many of us very often are covered and we do not even know it. My chief financial officer, my wife, keeps me very informed of that situation quite often, and thank goodness she is in charge of it. I think she would be a great Treasurer and maybe some day she will take over this seat.

But these are some of the questions that I think are very important and very critical because it is an extremely complex problem. When we talk about taking it out of general revenue, I think the people of this province are going to be very concerned.

However, having said that, I think we have programs right now that we have put in place -- and I think a typical example of that would be the welfare system -- where we put in place very well-meaning ideas, and we find ourselves now with the municipalities unable to keep up with their 20% share. So things change very dramatically and very quickly.

Something that is a very worthwhile and excellent program, like our social assistance, we put in place and we say, "Okay, the province will not fund all of it; 20% will be funded by the municipalities." Then whammo, when it goes up like it has, municipalities cannot keep up and they are facing some very dire, difficult circumstances. So when we put these funding mechanisms in place, we are going to have to be very careful to lay out very clearly the responsibilities.

I guess that gets back to the underlying question we talked about even in this House yesterday as part of the Constitution: How will these patchwork programs work? The money that is kicked in by the federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government -- how will it work? I guess we will know very shortly who will have the responsibility for these types of programs. I know this program is very dear to the Treasurer's heart and I know he has been pushing for it. It would be interesting to see some of his ideas and philosophies, because I know he has pushed for it in the past and I know the Premier has mentioned it as well.

How we put together this patchwork, I guess, is the most difficult thing. I have some very serious concerns about how that would work. I guess the reality is now that it looks like we are going to be pushing ahead with auto insurance. I think the Premier said as late as yesterday, that before the end of this session we will have an auto insurance program which presumably will talk about coverage. If we are going to push ahead with that, it would seem very strange if we were then to dismantle that as a result of having something along the lines of a universal disability program.

While it may be very well intended, if we were to do it we would probably have said, "Okay, let's hold off on the auto insurance and take a look at this universality program before we do it." Since we are not going to do that, I think it is going to be very difficult, and I would not suggest that we bring in the auto insurance, put together all the consultation that will need to be done in that area and then a year from now dismantle that and say, "Oh no, we've got this universality program."

I guess that is the unfortunate problem we face here, that we put something in place and then we have to dismantle it. So I think it is very worth while to look at long term but, knowing the government's agenda and the fact that it wants to bring in the auto insurance, I think it is going to be very, very difficult to do that. We can see how it is a very complex problem. I think the honourable member's bringing this resolution forward is very worth while, because that is what we need to do. We need to start planning long term, rather than having short-term fixes, and I am in favour of that.

There are a tremendous amount of questions and unfortunately not too many answers, but I guess that is true not only in this area but in a lot of them. We look forward to spending some time, in the long term, analysing these problems and taking a look at them. As we go forward, these are some of my preliminary comments and thoughts on the program.

Mr O'Connor: It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this debate around the resolution presented by the honourable member for York North. I must ask why he has brought the resolution forward today, because he has had the opportunity to debate it and vote on it in the last Parliament. On 11 May 1989 the resolution was presented by the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside. It has been presented many times and voted down.

I am pleased that "that was then and this is now," because we now have a government that is far more responsible. We have a cabinet that recognizes the need and has struck a committee of eight parliamentary assistants to look at the matter. The Chair of the committee is the parliamentary assistant to a long-time supporter of comprehensive disability compensation and now the Treasurer of Ontario.

The debate around universal disability insurance has taken place many times, and I have been led to believe that even more government studies have taken place in the past. What we do not need now is another series of studies, another review panel, another royal commission or to start another consultation process. What we need to do is wait for the parliamentary assistants' committee to report to cabinet.

I found some interesting things in Hansard from previous debates. One member even stated in this House, and I found it quite interesting:

"At this point in time, there is no province in Canada that has a socialist government. I think that says something about the mood of the people of Canada, quite frankly."

The time and the mood of Canadians have changed, and I am proud to be part of this first socialist or social democratic government of Ontario.

I am sure all the members of this House realize that if we had a system of universal sickness and accident benefits, many of the problems and inequities and the unfairness could be resolved. As a member of a trade union, Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222, I enjoyed the coverage of a universal sickness and accident benefits program that was negotiated at the bargaining table.

All too often, people living in this province have had to rely on unemployment insurance and, as a last resort, go to welfare. I am glad we have a committee looking at this serious situation.

One of the first things this committee will have to do is to find out how to organize the system and how the system is to be paid for, and it will have to look at the possibilities of assessment. The problem is very complex, and I feel the resolution presented here today puts an unrealistic time frame on this government for us to act in a responsible manner.

The member for Leeds-Grenville said in this House in an earlier debate that we must look at the overall impact, and I believe that the parliamentary assistants' committee is capable and will do just that. I believe the discussion should take place in a less partisan way, and I am sure those of the committee that has been struck will listen to the honourable members' comments, even the honourable member for York North.

It is unfortunate the member presenting this resolution today was not in the House during the last debate on this matter. If he had been, he might have been the only member in his caucus who would have stood there and voted against the resolution as presented in May 1989 during the last Parliament.

I am going to vote against this motion because I feel it is redundant when this government has already struck a committee of parliamentary assistants, representing so many different ministries. I am sure the government will act in a timely fashion on the resolution presented today, so I am going to vote against it.

Mrs Sullivan: I am very pleased to participate in this debate, and I want to congratulate the member for York North for bringing forward what I believe is an important and farsighted proposal that has been placed in a non-partisan manner so the issue can be considered on its merits and not on superfluous argumentation such as we have just heard.

I participated in the debate in May 1989 on a resolution of very similar content that was put forward by the now Minister of Housing. I believe that resolution would have passed this Legislature and action would have been taken had the resolution not been framed in what was an overly partisan manner. There was certainly support on our side of the House. This concept has had support in my party for many years and certainly it has had support in the government party for many years.

I believe members of this House should support the principle of this bill and provide all of the House the opportunity to explore the concept further. I do not think the resolution should be set aside. It deals with issues of equality and equity. It comes to terms with a fundamental unfairness in how we treat people who are disabled, because right now we say it is not the disability that alters a person's opportunity that matters but how the disability occurred, whether it is on the job, at birth, in an auto accident, in a backyard, on a municipal street or being a victim of crime.

The future of people, the dignity with which they live their lives, their opportunity to share to their maximum capacity, is different and there is no logic to that difference. It is to our shame, all of our shame, that we have not dealt with this inequity in the past. The member for York North's resolution provides an opportunity for all members of the House to say: "That's right, there is inequity.

Let's determine what we can do as representatives and as advocates to correct it." Let's look at how existing programs can fold in, whether they are auto insurance, private disability insurance, public support programs or workers' compensation. Let's look at funding alternatives, at the options of public programs, private programs or a melding of public and private mechanisms.

Let's look at how we can integrate into the same scheme people who have been forced to lose their incomes and people who never had an income. Let's look at how families can and should be treated. Let's look at how we can cut the costs of administration and the overlapping programs and put the savings either into benefits or into lowering the costs of coverage. Let's look at what specific services must be included and what services could be provided as options and how we can ensure that the person in Cornwall or Renfrew or North Bay can access those services as readily as people in Toronto.

Let's look at the economic consequences of a universal program, the impacts on the labour market, the GATT implications and the implications for our competitiveness. Let's look at the costs and the benefits. Let's examine whether one province can go it alone and how we can get the issue back on the national table, where it was when Marc Lalonde was Minister of Finance. Let's look at other jurisdictions -- New Zealand, for example -- where it is working, where it is failing, the salient features of other programs that have been put forward.

I believe that it is time for us to examine this issue in depth and that members should be singular participants in that. In the last debate, on the resolution of the member for Windsor-Riverside, I indicated that I was concerned about integrating workers' compensation into a social services network and that we ought to be careful not to confuse workers' compensation with the welfare program. That is not what drives workers' compensation. Over the past two years with my colleagues in my caucus we have been able to put more time in that, and I am now less convinced of the difficulty of integrating workers' compensation into a universal program.

I hope the members of the governing party will support this resolution so we can get to work on this. I urge those members of the government party not to get caught up on technical arguments. In terms of the change that could come about, it could be the single most important decision that members will make while they are in this House and the single most important contribution that they will make to their families, their communities, their province and their country. I hope they will take the chance of making a difference.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to compliment and congratulate my colleague the member for York North for his private member's bill. I want to put on the record a little bit of the honourable member's background. He actually got his start in politics as a civil servant working for the government of Ontario back in the days when there was a Progressive Conservative government in place, and he got some excellent training in the ministries operated by the Honourable René Brunelle from Cochrane North and the late Fern Guindon from Cornwall.

With that kind of background he is excellent material for leadership of the Liberal Party, and I certainly wish him well. I hope he has more planks in his platform than he has presented here this morning, because I have some reservations about his private member's bill.

First of all, I believe he is trying to out-NDP the NDP. That may be a little bit difficult, but I think that is part of his mission here this morning. I think we have to explore to a great degree the suggestions of a universal disability insurance plan. It sounds great, but the former government brought in a support and custody branch with the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I have to tell members that I have had a lot of my constituents phone and express a great deal of disappointment with the way that branch of the government presently operates.

It sounds good to the 99.9% of the people who do not use that ministry, but to those who have the opportunity of getting recorded messages upon recorded messages when they really want to speak to a real person, there is a problem, and to many of the problems that are faced by the people who are looking to have their support and custody requirements met, there is not an easy solution.

However, we have to speak to real people, address their problems and possibly find a solution. I am a little afraid that a universal disability insurance may wind up in that general, a grey area that says to those people who are not requiring the services, "The government has in place a mechanism to look after everything," until you have to deal with it and then it becomes very, very difficult. This is the kind of legislation I am afraid it might turn out to be.

Following the election, the Premier made comments that have caused some speculation. I believe the previous speaker from the government side, in saying he was not going to support my colleague's private member's bill this morning, effectively said, "Yes, we can be more left than this." That is fine. This is a social democratic government, and I guess that is its raison d'être. I guess we are going to see more and more of this.

My problem is that we have seen it to some degree with the previous government, the Peterson government, and I will cite some examples. Requirements were put on all of our school boards, without funding: "You will have class sizes no more than XYZ; however, no money." Or: "You employers have to pay an employer's health tax of 1.95% of your payroll." We eliminate the universal requirement for premiums on health care, but who bears the brunt? The employers -- municipalities, hospitals, school boards -- through an employer's health tax costing a fortune, with no funding.

In 1985 this province had a 10% tax advantage over Quebec, and I come from a riding adjacent to that province. Now, a short six years later, we are in a deficit position of several percentage points. We are taxed more, as residents and business people of this province, than are our friends over in Quebec. I think it bears repeating that businesses will slowly, if not quickly, drift away from this province as we continue to nail them with higher taxes. We are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America, and I am afraid this type of legislation would not at all alleviate or improve that situation.

I think the Premier was looking at a universal disability insurance program in conjunction with his proposed auto insurance package, and some of the deletions from cabinet we have seen in the last couple of weeks seem to match the puzzle quite well.

Mr Owens: Shame, shame.

Mr Villeneuve: Yes, it is a bit of a shame that it happened in that type of environment, and the real cause is still unknown as to why the former minister in charge of auto insurance was relegated to the back benches. He may have poor judgement, but surely that is not the only reason, and that question is still unanswered.

Unfortunately, the Premier provided little in the way of details for such a plan, and of course there is no known model for such a plan anywhere in North America or even anywhere in the world. Apparently, the Premier was inspired by a SARC recommendation calling for a universal no-fault insurance program for all Ontarians against all kinds of disabilities, sicknesses, injuries, etc. However, how this will be funded, how it will be looked after, is still an unknown quantity.

From the Premier's comments, it has been speculated that he is certainly contemplating such a plan and it is all part of the overall picture in replacing auto insurance compensation as we have known it and as we now have it with the former government's plan in place. The report was silent on how such insurance would be funded. One can only speculate. Drivers, of course, would contribute. Those people who are on salary would probably contribute in a direct or indirect way. And of course the employers, the corporate residents of this province, would certainly pay their share and likely more. Nothing comes free, and I am sorry to say this would be again a very expensive way.

There would be abuses. I say that as a person who has a large rural constituency. One of my major problems is with the Workers' Compensation Board, and there is no easy solution to that, as you know, Mr Speaker. You have constituency work as well and you could probably echo my very words. This is a non-political statement that indeed major problems are being faced by elected people in this Legislature pertaining to WCB.

A universal plan sounds great. However, there are the mechanisms. I hope that the sponsoring member, the member for York North, will explain further how the cost would be borne, by whom. That is of great concern. We cannot continue to punish the residents of Ontario, the businesses of Ontario, for social programs that sometimes are abused.

Mr Hope: Just looking at the resolution in itself, in

part it is an excellent resolution. It has a downfall, though. There is a time frame that is put forward in that resolution dealing with universal disability. It is a key thing that I share some of the concerns the member across has raised about people coming into our offices who have fallen through the gap, people who question whether a paycheque was going to be in their hands by next week or not. The ability to make payments on their mortgages or put food on their table was a big question. These were challenges that I as a person in my previous life was faced with from most sectors that were around us.

As we look at the universal disability compensation system, insurance program, it is an excellent idea, I feel. As a member of the committee which was formed by this government made up of parliamentary assistants, we have sat down since November examining this issue, making sure that we put a clear focus, a clear vision in what we see and how we can fund it.

Some of the questions that have been put forward today are some of the major questions we must address. There was the issue that dealt with the disabled, those who fall through the gaps, those who have maybe not purchased private insurance. These are the things that we must address. I reflect on this issue for the simple fact that most of us who are male and have wives who may be domestic engineers with no value put to their job as far as a paycheque is concerned, when a disability occurs to that person's spouse, it causes large financial difficulty for that family to maintain that service that domestic engineer has provided for us. These are some of the questions we must address.

Looking at the time frame, it is one of the major important things. It wants us to move very quickly, but quickly leads to error, and as we talk about the workers' compensation system or we talk about the Ontario motorist protection plan, just in those time frames, the changes in Bill 162 and the new legislation dealing with auto insurance, we have seen the problems. We have to correct the problems in making sure of the proper system, making sure that the funding mechanism is there and making sure that for those who deserve the funding, compensation is consistent in their homes and for them. We must make sure that we have it.

The unfortunate part today is that the Chair of the committee, because of prior commitments dealing with his riding, which is a major issue, is unable to be here today, but I want to emphasize that he shares a lot of the same concerns that I do. As a person who sat on the other side knocking on politicians' doors before, looking for a fix to some of the gaps that were there, we are doing that. We are moving, and we want to make sure that we move in a clear vision, a clear focus for the people of Ontario to make sure that the funding mechanisms, the concerns under workers' compensation, the concerns that lie around, are well addressed and clearly addressed.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity, and I will be voting against it for the one major reason of the June time frame that is put before us.

Mr Offer: Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is for me to take

part in this debate on the motion put forward by the member for York North, and indeed to carry on the remarks not only of the honourable member but also of the member for Halton Centre. Let me indicate that I speak in full support of this motion, and in the time permitted to me I would like to explain why.

We must recognize in this Legislature that there are a number of programs in existence designed to compensate for a variety of reasons. We have the automobile protection plan, the workers' compensation system, we have the Gains program, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We have programs on the basis of private plans as well as plans as the result of collective bargaining, all plans designed in part to compensate for injury, a variety of injury. Each of these particular models runs separately. Each has its own system of delivery and its own eligibility criteria.

We must recognize that, even with this myriad of plans, not everyone is covered. Not all injuries are those which result in compensation, and as a result, disparities or inequities occur. Benefits are different.

We must recognize, and I am sure everyone in this Legislature recognizes, that where injury occurs, there is in many cases a pain to one's family apart from the injury, however occasioned, which has occurred. It is a real pain, it is substantial, and I believe that if there is a method to address this terrible hurt, this way of injury to one's standard of living, then we as legislators have an obligation. Indeed, it is our responsibility to address the matter.

In that respect, I take note of the comments of the members of the government side, who have today for the first time indicated that there is a parliamentary assistants' committee designed to address this issue. We have not seen this type of committee. We have not seen the mandate for the committee. We have not seen the timetable for the committee. May I state that it is our responsibility as legislators of this House to address this issue and not just one clique in terms of government members.

Many have spoken about the cost of such a program. It sounds like a great deal of money. What is the cost and who is to pay? These are valid questions. I believe that it may be the case, a suspicion, if you will, on my part at this time, that with a program, the principle of which is embraced in the motion by the member for York North, potentially more people will be covered, more injuries compensable, and that indeed it will be done in an efficient and an economical way.

It was only yesterday that the Premier, in his speech to this Legislature on the Constitution, spoke to an issue of division of powers. He spoke of what municipalities in an increasing way are referring to as disentanglement, of taking a look at what is provided by whom. Is that done in the most efficient and effective way, of potentially disentangling that which has happened and rebuilding? Is that not indeed the principle under this particular motion?

Let us take a look at the different forms of models for which compensation is provided. Let us see if it is done in the most effective, efficient and economical way. Let us see, by virtue of potentially disentangling those particular programs, that we can rebuild into a single program which will bring in more people, more types of injury and deal with it in an economical and efficient manner.

We as legislators, and not just as a series of eight parliamentary assistants, should not be afraid to investigate this area. In fact, as legislators, as members elected to this particular Legislature, we should be enthusiastic in approaching this issue.

Finally, in the area of consultation I note with some dejection the comments made by the member for Durham-York and the member for Chatham-Kent as to the time frame. They do not like this motion because of the time frame, being June of this year. Consultation is a necessity: consultation with labour, consultation with business, consultation with municipalities, consultation over the principle, consultation over the issues and how those issues can be addressed. To say that they will vote against this motion on the basis that the consultation is to take place by the month of June is, I say, to deny the particular principle.

The Premier has spoken in glowing terms of a committee dealing with the Constitution. I see that the Chairman of that constitutional committee is here today and the Chairman will know that we will be dealing with matters of re-Confederation, of a variety of issues and implications, such as economic implications, on different forms of powers and redistribution of powers, and we will be reporting by the end of June of this year.

Surely if it is good enough for a select committee on the Constitution to address these very complicated issues, and to be doing so with the support of the Premier, then members on the government side can embrace that form of consultation and have this particular motion and these particular issues dealt with by another committee of this Legislature, again reporting back to this Legislature by June of this year. It is no excuse to say that consultation cannot be effectively done by June. If it is enough for this constitutional committee, it should be enough for the principles embraced in this motion.

In closing, I support this motion. I support the good words of the member for York North and the member for Halton Centre in terms of the need to address a demonstrated need, to do so in an efficient, effective and economical manner and to do so in the spirit of consultation.

Mr Perruzza: I rise today in support of the resolution by the member for York North in principle, and I support the idea and the concept of universality and universal insurances on many fronts.

When you look at the current system, as the member accurately outlined a little while ago in his speech, there are a number of existing programs which are currently on the books which, quite frankly, are not working very well. I am afraid that holes are being punctured in the armour of those programs and you have the blood of victims and their families gushing through. In some way we have to move to seal those gaps, to link the cracks and some of the programs.

To reiterate, we have the Workers' Compensation Board, CPP, no-fault auto insurance now, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, unemployment insurance, private long-term disability insurance and so on. The list goes on. As the member indicated, we have uneven access to cash benefits in those systems. Coverage depends on cause and degree of disability, labour force participation, whether the employer provides long-term disability insurance or not, replacement rates, earnings ceilings that vary from program to program, and the list goes on and on and on.

I think that at some point we as a government and as a Legislature -- I would hope this is a non-partisan issue -- must move to revamp the system.

However, I regret that what we are doing here and what this resolution does in fact is it plays politics with the lives of people. I think that we have a government here -- I am certainly going to support this resolution -- that could support it overwhelmingly. However, the time lines that have been established by the member for York North's motion are unrealistic on a number of fronts.

My colleague to the left indicates that my time is almost up and I suspect I could speak for several days on this particular subject. I will wind up by saying that I regret that we are playing politics with this issue. I am going to support the resolution and I suspect that a number of my colleagues are inclined to do the same, but I think that their reservations are going to be very similar in nature. There is a structure in place now to look at this in a comprehensive, long-term way and I think that we would do well to move in that direction.

I would like to indicate and clarify something that one of the honourable members opposite, the member for Halton Centre, indicated. She talked about the member for Windsor-Riverside's resolution here some time ago in the House. She was on the government side of the House when the member for Windsor-Riverside talked about universal disability insurance. The member for Halton Centre voted against the member for Windsor-Riverside's motion at that time and it struck me that she brought this up in her own discussion here this morning and I find that a little awkward.

I cannot help but reiterate the line that they have been tossing at us for a number of weeks now: That was then, I say to the member for Halton Centre, this is now.

Mr White: I am pleased to be able to speak on this resolution. Prior to becoming a professional social worker, I worked in welfare myself. Daily I saw the pain and humiliation that disadvantaged people who were disadvantaged because of accident or illness were forced to endure. Much of that humiliation was produced by the gaps in our social support system.

There were different eligibility criteria for the Canada pension plan, for workers' compensation, for unemployment insurance, for long-term disability, for auto insurance, for Gains-D. Injured workers and disabled people in general were put through more hoops and had to know more about legislation and regulation; they had to know it backwards, forwards and sideways. Having suffered a disability through illness or accident, they then had to face the humiliation of not being able to support themselves or their families and had to apply for welfare because those other programs were not accessible.

On top of that, they had to prove to some bureaucrat that they matched that program's criterion. The program was not designed for them. It was designed for itself.

Whether that program was provincial, federal, municipal, public, private, out of the whole panoply of them I began to think that there was a reason for this multiplicity of programs. Perhaps there could be some real financial savings if we had programs that were not accessible. The more difficult it is to access a program, the more likely it is that injured or disabled people will just give up and fall back on welfare assistance.

That was the situation almost 20 years ago. I cannot say it has substantially changed since then. The SARC report indicted some 30% of the GWA and FBA case load is made up of the disabled or the ill, more than 100,000 cases in this province.

I know that the member for York North was a concerned and capable minister and I am sure that he tried in the last two years of his government to implement a universal disability program. However, my friend the member for York North was unable to effect this program or to demonstrate any evidence of any intent from his government to effect such a program. We have heard about many very progressive pieces of legislation that were going to be forthcoming. We have not seen any evidence of them in the last five years. I am sure that he must have been very frustrated.

His colleagues were not willing or able to support him at that time. But this is now. Now they are willing to support him. I am glad to hear that they have become increasingly progressive since last September.

Now he wishes to establish an agenda for us, a timetable for us, a structure for us to --

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you. The member for York North.

Mr Beer: In the time left I would like to comment on some of the things that have been said in the debate, but I would at the outset like to thank all the honourable members for participating and for a number of the questions that have been raised, which I think are very legitimate ones and in terms of the process I am talking about would be important to be reviewed and examined. That is one of the points behind this particular resolution. But I want to say to the members opposite who have concerns about the time frame that I think there is, quite frankly, some misunderstanding of what it is that is being suggested in my motion.

Let's go back to first principles and remember why we are putting this forward in the first place. Quite simply, it is that there are too many disabled and injured people in this province, as has been said, who have been denied critically needed benefits because what we have got is a patchwork quilt. What we are trying to do here is to make sure that people do not have to live lives of poverty and desperation, that we can actually do something, begin a process that within the mandate of this government is going to see real change in the system we have.

We know that we are spending something in the order of $6.5 billion in this province on various disability programs. We agree that is not good enough, that there is overlap that is poorly administered. We have got to bring that together.

The fact that it is part of a previous government -- we did not do everything that we might have wanted -- I think is irrelevant. The point is that now we have this issue before us we have an opportunity to go forward.

On the question of process, members should read the motion very carefully. It does not say everything is going to be completed by the end of June. In point of fact, in Treasury -- and I urge members to go to the Treasurer -- the documents are there, setting out a time frame of approximately two years for a consultative process that ends in legislation before the government mandate is up. What I have asked for here is to initiate the process.

The government tells us there is this parliamentary assistants' committee, a committee that I think few in this province have ever heard of. As my friend mentioned, if the select committee on Ontario in Confederation can deal with those issues and make a report by the end of June, surely the parliamentary assistants, together with Treasury, can get out before the end of June an issues and options document, not a full-blown government policy but what are the issues, what are the options, mentioned by my friends in the Conservative Party as well as on the government side and here, questions that we need to ask.

That can be done. Then the consultative process begins. This does not say it is the beginning and the end.

It is a red herring to say the time frame is leading members opposite to vote against it. I have to ask members opposite, when they look at this, are they in favour of the principle? This parliamentary assistants' committee has been in existence since November. Surely it is within the intelligence of the government to put out an issues and options paper and begin a consultative process. That is what this motion is asking for. If they vote against it, then it is they who are playing politics with this issue and playing with the people whose lives are affected.

The principle is clear: There is a process and it is private members' hour. Members opposite do not need to listen to the whips. They are free to vote as they wish in private members' hour. I commend my colleague the member for Downsview for having the courage to do that. I urge the rest of the members opposite to do it, because they support the principle. The time frame is adequate. Together we can do this. Let's start something now.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Villeneuve moved second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Mr Villeneuve: I do not think this will create a great deal of controversy, but it has to go through the normal channels, and this is part of it. Simply put, Bill 31 is to change the name of the riding I very proudly represent from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which is a very historical part of eastern Ontario, to S-D-G & East Grenville.

Under redistribution of 1986, the riding I proudly represent was expanded to include approximately the eastern half of the county of Grenville. In this very proud area we have five municipalities with a total population of 14,560, or approximately 25% of the entire population of the riding I represent. We have the second-largest town in the riding, Kemptville, a very progressive town known for the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology; it also has the eastern headquarters for the Ministry of Government Services.

The Ministry of Natural Resources plays a very important role in the management of natural resources in eastern Ontario. Of course, we have the Kemptville District Hospital and a number of other very important aspects, making it the second-largest town, with a population of almost 2,500, in the riding I represent.

The village of Cardinal, almost 1,600 in population, is the home of Casco and Best Foods, sometimes referred to as Canada Starch, the major employer in that town and a major processor of Ontario corn. Certainly those people, I think, have to be recognized in the name of the riding.

The township of Edwardsburgh is largely a rural municipality, very important to the economy of Grenville county, and indeed its present reeve, David Sloan, is the warden of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville.

South Gower is a smaller rural municipality, some 1,600 in population, rapidly growing and presently welcoming many people who are employed in the city of Ottawa but who travel south of the Rideau River to call South Gower their home. Likewise, there is the municipality of Oxford-on-Rideau, expanding very rapidly along the shores of the historical Rideau River, with a population of some 4,600 and one of the more rapidly growing areas, not only in Grenville county but in the riding I represent.

As members see, it has been very difficult to explain to the residents, 25% of the people that I represent, why the name of East Grenville has not been included in the riding name. I have tried on different occasions to have the name changed. Initially it was to be known as Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. However, in the interest of brevity that particular name was considered to be too cumbersome and too long, and I understand that, without belittling the great and historical riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, often referred to -- probably more often than not -- as SD&G.

Incidentally, this is the plaid of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. It is the Macdonell of Glengarry -- a fighting unit very highly recognized for many years. They were affectionately referred to as the SD&G Highlanders, and when I say "affectionately," sometimes they would be SD&G as for "sand, dust and gravel," but that was always in a very loving and joking way; they were known as one of the best regiments in the area.

It is always intriguing when I tell people who visit eastern Ontario -- the riding stretches from the Ontario-Quebec border to the town of Prescott -- on your mileage odometer you travel about a third of the distance to Toronto, in the riding I very proudly represent, as you come in from Quebec and travel to the outskirts of the town of Prescott. We are very proud of the fact that Ontario history effectively began in that area of the province.

It is certainly the home of many United Empire Loyalists and many, many people of French background who came from Quebec 100 years ago or so to make their home in eastern Ontario. We have the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, immediately west of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and of course the united and historical counties of Prescott and Russell, represented by my colleague over here, effectively north of Highway 417.

Two very major arteries run through the riding I represent, Highway 417 and Highway 401, and we are fighting very hard to have Highway 16 twinned into a four-lane highway. According to the Ministry of Transportation, this will be occurring, hopefully, before the turn of the century. Indeed, from the south, from the Johnstown Bridge to the nation's capital, we will have a road worthy to be the main artery leading from the United States to the capital of Canada.

I will have the opportunity of replying to some of my colleagues but, in speaking with them, I have found there is very little opposition to changing the name of the riding I represent. I realize it will be the first time -- I believe the first time -- that initials will be utilized. However, I want to touch on another subject that is part and parcel of the redistribution. I represent a large rural riding, as do many elected people to this Legislature.

There are 23 very active municipalities in the riding I represent, and under redistribution the criterion was that we were aiming for 74,000 of population and we would allow 25% variation either way. When you are dealing with a large rural area and your largest town, as in my case, is the great metropolis of Alexandria, with 3,300 people, and the second-largest is Kemptville, with some 2,500 population, it takes an awful lot of rural routes and small towns and villages in rural Ontario to get to your required population base.

I firmly believe that prior to the next redistribution we will have to look at and designate certain ridings as rural, because if we continue to try and meet a population criterion we will effectively have members running large and vast geographical areas trying to satisfy the population requirement and in so doing reduce effective representation by the person who is here at Queen's Park. Members have to remember that I am four and a half hours away from my home; whether I travel by car, by train or by plane, it really does not matter a great deal. It is that kind of time frame that you need to get from Queen's Park to my home, which is quite centrally located within the riding I represent.

I know northern Ontario has a criterion that meets some geographical, commonsense issues, and I think we have to look at that in the rural areas under any new redistribution. The population criterion would either be different or there would be some sort of commonsense approach that says, "An individual member of this Legislature can only service a certain-sized area." I think that has to be incorporated. I would strongly support any legislation which would recognize our rural agricultural areas as areas that would be treated somewhat differently than the sprawling, rapidly expanding urban areas which can meet population criteria quite quickly.

I will reserve the rest of my time to reply to my colleagues, and I fully anticipate that they will be supporting my private member's motion and that before the Legislature recesses in June, the great riding I very proudly represent will be know as S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Owens: I proudly rise in support of the honourable member's motion. On 18 December 1990 the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry presented private member's Bill 31, requesting that the name of his riding be changed from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to S-D-G & East Grenville.

I believe every sitting member recognizes the significance of his own electoral district and believes the name of that district should reflect the geographical area. The electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry did in fact reflect the riding's geographical boundaries until redistribution in 1987. At that time the riding was expanded to indicate the illustrious area of eastern Grenville county. It seems only appropriate then that after the redistribution of 1987 we should include this new area in the electoral district name. But electoral district names can become unwieldy in length.

Since this new district of the honourable PC member seems far too long to manoeuvre verbally, let alone to be used on letterhead or business cards, it seems most appropriate to use abbreviations.

The honourable member, I am sure, after a great amount of consultation, came up with the most appropriate name for his electoral district: S-D-G & East Grenville. Some wags have taken to describe the new electoral district, S-D-G, as sand, dust and gravel. However, personally I believe and I take it to mean strength, determination and generosity.

I would like to take a moment to talk about a family living just outside of Cornwall. The family members are, of course, constituents of the honourable member. Maurice and Theresa Gagné are probably two of the most generous people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Their daughter Manon, along with her husband, Roy, is a constituent of mine. I can tell members that the values of hard work and generosity have been successfully passed down to the Gagné children. By the way, Theresa Gagné has a sparerib recipe that would knock the socks off of any rib lover.

The honourable member once related to me a story about two other constituents of his who were having difficulty during these terrible economic times. One was a furniture store owner and the other was in sales of another kind. Because sales were slow for the purchaser of a suite of furniture, she was unable to make payments. Again, because of the generous nature of the honourable member's constituents, the customer was able to keep the furniture and the store owner was able to keep a customer.

I would like to return to a more historical context. The honourable member has told this House of the historical significance of using the initials of the three large cities. Back in the days of wartime, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry had the SD&G Highlanders, who proudly wore the Macdonell of Glengarry plaid as their fighting colours. I would like to point out that the honourable member is wearing a tie of those very colours. To this day the initials SDG are recognized as those of the county, and it seems quite logical, and certainly less cumbersome, to change the riding name and use the letters SDG.

Located in the most southeasterly

section of this great province, this electoral district should include in its name the 14,568 people who live in eastern Grenville. Indeed, I am sure the noble citizenry -- pardon the pun -- of this

section of town feel quite strongly about the importance of a name change to reflect their geographic identity. Certainly the honourable member is doing his duty by proposing to this House, in the form of a private member's bill, this important name change.

Sometimes in our overspecific language we leave out important aspects of our society. We have now recognized that as being important. I think the Premier's speech last night wants us to recognize that this is a society of inclusiveness rather than of exclusiveness. The current name of this electoral district is overspecific and therefore excludes the very important area of eastern Grenville. This is just as inappropriate, as I am sure the honourable members would agree, as using sexist language which excludes 50% of our society.

Indeed, we have learned the mistakes of our language and that language is important and does convey messages and does reflect on our views of society. Only we as citizens and individuals can work towards using language that is inclusive. Of course, this will be again reflected in the change of the name of the electoral district to accurately reflect the geographical area.

In closing, I would certainly like to commend the honourable member for requesting a name change and hope that his private member's bill can be passed expeditiously.

Mr Elston: As unaccustomed as I am to speaking in the chamber, I would like to join the discussion today on the change in name of this particular electoral district. I note with some sadness that we will lose the designation of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as part of the formal electoral district name. I have nothing against the short form, because it has been often used, and I am sure common parlance locally is to use SDG to help people who want to get to the point of their arguments much quicker so they do not have to wrap their tongues around all three names.

But I think it comes as a great surprise for those people looking for the continuity of a term, which appeared in the gathering places of Ontario since the early part of the 1800s, that as of the passing of this act there will be a passing of the words Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry into a sort of antiquity. I know the reference to the area is still there by the use of the short form, but my experience has been and the experience I think of all of us in general is that once you remove the names there is a removal and a loss for all time of some of those traditional thoughts associated with those names and, of course, what proud history that area has always had.

The history of it has been well studied, I am sure, by most of us as youngsters, as we grew up through a system of education that spent, in the early days of my education at least, somewhat more time on the historical evolution of our province -- maybe not as complete as it ought to have been, but I think it was more complete in some aspects of our history than we now see our youngsters being exposed to.

There is for a number of people a problem with becoming familiar with all of Ontario's history, but at least when you go through the list of electoral districts you can follow the historical derivation of a lot of the social context within which we currently find ourselves. Take a look, for instance, at some of the ridings here in the city of Toronto, in Metropolitan Toronto. You will note there is a designation of those electoral districts along the lines of the old villages that used to be here.

If you go up and down the subway stops, you will note that the stops are Davisville and St Andrew and St Patrick and a whole series of other designations that talk about the old central focuses of settlements in the days gone by. The effort there is quite clear, that it is necessary and proper in a modern society like ours that we leave the signposts that helped us get to where we are going.

The people who live in Riverdale or who live in the Beaches or who live at Woodbine were quite correct when they decided, honestly and up front, that it would be in the best interests of their areas to preserve their history by preserving the full name of the villages in which the initial early settlements occurred. What great history the Beaches has in Toronto, for instance. What great history there is in High Park. What great history there is in so many other of the centres in Metropolitan Toronto as the sprawling growth has taken over those small villages and has consumed them into a larger existence.

I know the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. If this bill passes, obviously this will be about the last time we will refer to him that way in this House, at least after we get the third reading; it will be no longer the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry but the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. I know the member says it is the same thing, but for the people who used to be interested in hearing Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, we would hear it no more officially here in this forum.

I am not trying to make anything out of it except to express my concern about the historical loss. The member himself spoke about the need to protect the representation of areas with substantial historical significance in the evolution of our history. In fact, they have played a great part and a great role in the development of Ontario's fabric in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, but from now on there will be no more Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry electoral district; it will be S-D-G & East Grenville.

If we are to prevent the overrunning of our history, if a person finds it too long to have Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville in the electoral district's name, it would seem to me preferable to have left it Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, East Grenville for the documents. Some people say that is going to take up too much space on the letterhead. God knows, as members of the Legislature we put all the stuff we can pack into that top inch and a half or two inches anyway. What is the difference? What really is the difference?

I guess it is difficult to put all those typesettings on the documents, but could we not have left this as Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, East Grenville for the purposes --

Mr Villeneuve: I tried, and the Liberals said no.

Mr Elston: No, I understand what the problem is; I am merely expressing what I believe to have been the right way for the member to have gone. If I had known this was taking place -- I apologize for not having known, but I have never talked to the member, prior to my current position, before on this matter. But as a person who studied history --

Mr Carr: You never talked to him because you were in cabinet.

Mr Elston: No, it is not true. The member for Oakville South indicated that I never talk to him. Certainly, I never did talk to him during my cabinet time; he is a recent arrival.

But I used to speak to his predecessor, and I would have, if I had known, been glad to speak to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry about this, because as a person who has studied history I have some sense of the loss that will come when you submerge the name for the purposes of some practicality, and we, for goodness' sake, are submerging so much of our history these days for the purposes of practical problems that we ought to do everything we can to strive to protect the integrity of the names that are great signposts of our past.

I know the member spoke about the fact that we said it was too long. I presume that probably where that came from was the fact that people who had to deal with this in typesetting said it was too long, as opposed to the Liberal government, which the member is trying to make a little political hay from.

Some hon members: Shame, shame.

Mr Elston: That is what he said it for. Listen, the guy is a very good politician. He knows how to campaign. In fact, I remember campaigning in 1984 in Stormont, Dundas --

Mr Villeneuve: In 1983.

Mr Elston: Sorry, 1983. Maybe I was late; maybe that is why they lost. I remember campaigning there in December 1983 in the middle of a snowstorm, and it was obvious that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was a very capable and very fine individual.

I was campaigning in Winchester on the back streets, talking to the local citizenry, and started out in full sunshine, a rather cool day -- warm at the door; cool from a climatic point of view -- but by the time I went no more than about an hour on the streets there, the member-in-waiting had arranged to have it snowing so hard we could hardly see from the sidewalk to the door handles. That probably explains why we lost Winchester in that by-election, in which the member with the name Villeneuve replaced the former member, whose name was also Villeneuve. I am sure that was merely a coincidence.

I should say, by the way, speaking to this, that the proud history of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry had attached to it the name of another Villeneuve, who was there for a considerable length of time. Osie Villeneuve, as some of you know, really spent a lot of time there. Actually, he was provincially elected, then went in elected federally, and then came back and served provincially, and in fact sat where the member for Wentworth North now sits. That seat was permanently, almost, assigned to Osie Villeneuve. He served his constituents well and knew the constituency remarkably well.

There was little question whatsoever about the outcome of any election, even if he were 10 years down the road from it, because that particular Mr Villeneuve was well respected.

I might say in a moment of charity -- or is it generosity? -- that SDG is equally well served by a gentleman who is also well known. I know it was merely a coincidence that they found another Villeneuve to replace Osie.

While I am speaking to this and the historical nature of the changes to come by the change in name, I would just like to say to the family of the late Osie Villeneuve that, although we like the current member, we likewise miss the sage advice we used to receive from a man who had a bearing which was semi regal, I guess, in nature, and who was a good friend to a lot of new members around this House, just to deviate for a moment to that point.

I do really want to say that I understand the reason this is happening, but I regret that historically those words will disappear. I know that what the gentleman from the New Democratic Party was trying to indicate were some of the characteristics of the people from that part of eastern Ontario, in a way which I think underscores the characteristics that go with a lot of the people who reside in all parts of the province.

But the mere use of that as an example, I think, leads me to believe that when we are not here as a generation, and when we are not able to tell others in the debates that the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is represented by someone -- in this case Mr Villeneuve, who will be there for a long time probably, at least until I show up on time for the next by-election, or whatever, who knows -- but we will no longer be able to say what SDG means.

He will, when he is making his speeches. The people at the electoral commission will refer to it as SDG. Those people will know it as S-D-G -- and East Grenville, just to finish it off. The people who do all of the administrative activities and the people who write all the books about S-D-G & East Grenville will probably not refer back the way we could with our memories to the days when it was Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Our signposts in history are so necessary to ensure the preservation and protection of our culture, of our heritage, of the understanding of the evolution of our social thought and thinking. These electoral district names are only really a determination to preserve the history in a way in which people who have no connection from a chronological point of view with the area can understand the existence of that part of our history in a real fashion.

There is another of our colleagues who wants to speak on this. I just wanted to put that on the record. I know the local member will keep it high in priority when he is speaking. There is a member to come after him, as there will be a member to come after each of us, and there is a member to come after that and after that. I think the first step to preservation, as is well known in other places, is to ensure that we do not drop any of the signposts of our past. I just want to warn us about that. It happens so quickly.

Mr Carr: I will very briefly speak in support of my colleague. I have a similar situation in my riding; a portion of my riding falls into the Burlington area. It is ironic how important the name of the riding is, because when I was out canvassing in the last election campaign there actually were some people who said they do not vote because of the name change, that they do not feel they are a part of Oakville South, having lived in Burlington.

Of course that is done because of the redistribution and trying to keep the numbers fair, but the people think of themselves as part of the Burlington community, not the Oakville community. It has been a very difficult task to get them and incorporate them into feeling a part of my riding, so I can appreciate how important this matter of a name change, which we sometimes think may not seem too important, is to the very people who are out there.

I would like to support my colleague in his move to change that as a result of that, because I have seen first hand in my riding some people who are saying to me: "I don't feel a part of it. I feel left out." Even when newsletters or householders go out and you have to put Oakville South on it, we still get calls saying, "What about the Burlington portion?" I have taken now to putting on the letters I send out "Oakville South," and also saying to the people "Burlington southeast," because it is a very difficult situation for those people who do not feel a part of the riding.

My colleague who represents the Burlington portion in Burlington South has done everything he could to try and work with us, because what happens is that it is so close that a lot of people, because they live in Burlington, will call his office rather than calling my office because they feel a little left out. There are a lot of things we need to do, and I am in the process now of trying to figure out a name change. We are fortunate. The previous speaker talked about the long tradition. Our tradition has not been as long, but it is very difficult, because there are some people who want to keep the name and it is very difficult to come up with some type of name that will keep everybody happy.

I think even my predecessor, who was mentioned earlier, had sent out in one of his newsletters a flyer to try and change the name and asked for comments; so many came back that it made it very difficult. So when we are looking at making a name change like this, it is a very difficult process. I know the member in doing this took a great deal of time to get a lot of input. I would just like to say that I can sympathize with him and will be giving him my support.

Mr Klopp: I rise at this time to say that I fully support the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in his name change. I surely realize that he has taken the time and the effort to know that this change is something that is needed. I am sure he has taken the time back in his riding to talk to everyone and to make sure they understand it.

He also took the time to comment on the issue of rural distribution. I am glad he took the time to talk about that because it is a concern I also have. I would like to say that if we can work together in making sure that rural areas are represented -- I am sure we all realize that rep by population was a good thing that was started many years ago, because if we look back in our history it was abused by people who had, maybe, very distinct political ideas. I am sure none of us wants to get away from that, but at the same time, times change.

In an open consultation of all people in this room and the people who are concerned, I am sure we can come up with some changes which still allow the representation of democracy, because that is really what we are talking about. I say very openly to all members who are concerned about that that I am too, and if we can get together and work at that over the next four and a half years, or sooner if we can, and come up with some ideas, I look forward to that. I hope today that this bill passes as soon as possible.

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure to join in this debate. I think it raises one of the questions for a number of us, in terms of how we go about ensuring that what our riding is called relates back to the community we live in. I want to refer to the comments made by the member for Oakville South because I think particularly in areas of what we call fast growth and the way boundaries change, the names of those ridings, which are often geographical -- north, south, east, west -- can then cause problems in terms of people feeling included or excluded.

I have always been in favour, where possible, of trying to use historical references for the names of ridings. For example, my riding is York North. There is a federal riding of York North, and there is a municipality called North York, and I cannot begin to tell members the number of letters I get addressed to Mel Lastman, the mayor of North York. I do not mind getting those letters, but it seems to me that there is some confusion here.

As members will know, William Lyon Mackenzie, the night after the great revolt, actually spent the night in my riding, and I have always thought that perhaps the best name would be York Mackenzie. Perhaps some day that is something I would want to bring forward.

One of the things when we are changing riding names, though, is that it is important that somehow people in that riding are able to participate in the discussion. In the normal course of events if we were going through changes in names, there is a consultative process. I think it is important when we are concerned about people being involved that we keep that in mind so changes really do reflect the will of the people in that particular riding. But the historical aspect of it is important and one we should keep in mind.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate as well, in support of my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- soon to be S-D-G & East Grenville, for a whole bunch which I will try to elaborate upon.

I want to make a few brief comments at the outset, though, with respect to some of the things that were mentioned by the member for Bruce, a good friend and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, talking about Osie Villeneuve. Both he and I had the opportunity to serve with the late Osie Villeneuve for a couple of years before his passing. He was a fine gentleman and certainly helped the newcomers to the Legislature in that period of time. His wife, Alma, is a grand lady and is still living and going very strong in the community of Maxville.

But I want to take this opportunity -- we do not have too many opportunities like this -- to say a few things about his successor, the current member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I have had the opportunity of serving with him for something going on eight years now, and we feel fortunate to have him within the Progressive Conservative caucus; he is frequently a voice of reason.

He has, particularly with the boundary changes in the last election, a pretty good cross-section of Ontarians resident within his riding: a lot of Franco-Ontarians, a lot of Anglo-Ontarians, a lot of United Empire Loyalists, a lot of people who feel very strongly about this province and its roots in this country.

We have frequently had discussions about constitutional matters, if you will, questions of language, and he has been a force within our caucus who has always provided us with that stability, as I said earlier, the voice of reason, a very persuasive voice indeed, someone who has been of immense assistance to all of us who have served since he joined our caucus in 1983. He has served not only the people of his riding extremely well but I believe, because of his contributions in this Legislature and to our party, he has served the people of Ontario extremely well. I very much appreciate having an opportunity to say that about a colleague and someone I consider a good friend.

The name of my riding, Mr Speaker, as you are well aware, is Leeds-Grenville. The redistribution created some problems with respect to the division of Grenville, as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has spoken to. It has created problems for my office as well, because traditionally the federal member is Leeds-Grenville and the provincial member is Leeds-Grenville; so we are suffering from this failure to clearly distinguish the responsibilities between the member and myself, and we have had some difficulties in the past in respect to that.

I think the mover of the resolution was quite correct when he talked about the redistribution process. The electoral boundaries commission of the time made, I think, a serious error, but again they were basing it all on representation by population and I think that is a mistake; we have to look at that in the next redistribution, especially in respect to rural ridings because we cannot simply base it on representation by population. We are continually losing rural ridings and rural representation in this Legislature. We have to come up with some kind of formula.

I have frequently talked about the difference between urban and essentially rural ridings in workload. I represent a riding that is significantly rural, and I know that as a member in such a riding you tend to have a much higher profile, you tend to be called upon to attend social events much more so than a member, for example, in downtown Toronto. A member in downtown Toronto can cover his riding in a very speedy period of time,

whereas those of us representing rural ridings have significant miles to travel to try and cover our riding, to try to get to functions. We have much more social demands placed upon us.

I think those kinds of things have not been recognized by electoral boundaries commissions in the past, and we as legislators have to ensure that those kinds of things are taken into consideration when they are drawing these boundaries in the future.

I agree with the member for Bruce when he said the historical signposts have to be recognized as well. Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, names that are part of history, have to be recognized much more than they have been in the past.

I do not want to get partisan; I tend to do these things. The member for Bruce is a very sincere gentleman, no question about it, but when he talks about preserving signposts of history, the Liberal Party federally has probably been more responsible for doing away with signposts of history in this country than any other political party. Just look at what they have done with respect to the monarchy, the flag, the national anthem, the system of measurement in this country. When you talk about signposts of history, Liberals, federally at least, have a lot to answer for.

There are a couple of other things that have created problems for me in my riding and, I am sure, for the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as well, in terms of complaints from constituents. The member for Oakville South mentioned this too, the concerns he has from people who feel they are left out; they are left out because there is no recognition in terms of the riding name to recognize those individuals.

I recall last year issuing a telephone directory in one of my mailings to constituents and on the cover, of course, it says, "The member for Leeds-Grenville" --

Mr Bradley: Was your picture.on it?

Mr Runciman: Several pictures, as a matter of fact. I did not include the member's. My apologies.

We had a number of people calling from east Grenville who were concerned that their municipalities were left out of this telephone directory and they were not receiving these like other residents of Grenville; they were quite upset by it. Of course, we had to go through the explanations that I represent only a certain portion of Grenville; my colleague represents the other part of that riding. Those people indeed have legitimate concerns and complaints in respect to feeling left out, although they are not left out in terms of representation; I want to tell members that. They could not have a stronger voice in this Legislature than the current representative from that area.

I do not have a great deal more to add to this debate, simply to say that I support my colleague and urge speedy passage of this bill.

Mr Perruzza: I will not go on at length, but it surprises me when time periods for the debates are negotiated in this House, that on some substantive, real issue, such as the one we ended a little time ago on the member for York North's resolution, there are very serious time constraints; however, when we deal with a matter such as this, it seems members can go on at exorbitant lengths.

Speaking to this particular name change, I am not going to support the change in name. I can sympathize with the member and what he is attempting to do, but I feel that we owe a little something of ourselves to history and to the preservation of history, and I think that if electoral boundaries change, the new area could well be incorporated in the name.

I am reluctant to move to computerized electoral districts because if that is the case then perhaps what we should be looking at is numbers. Let's number the ridings 1 to 132. Let's forget the history behind the ridings and go that route. It is very short, it fits on an election sign very succinctly in a corner on the bottom and so on, and you do not have to get into any elaborate concepts.

The member can refer to the riding however he chooses to in his letterhead, on his election signs and so on. I think the Conservative member who just finished speaking alluded to the electioneering behind the names of our ridings and so on, the travelling between distances. He talked about having to move from one community to the next, that it takes some time to do that, in an election year. I think there is something a little more important in the names of the ridings we represent than simply distances between towns. I subscribe to the view that our history and culture and heritage need to be preserved, and I think we would do well to further that process.

I cannot think of a flowerier name or a district I would like to represent simply because the name strikes a chord in me as symbolic of our past and of our history than Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. That is history to me. If the member for that riding, who is a member of this caucus, were to come forward with an abbreviated version of that name change, I would be reluctant to support him as well, because I think it is important that history in this Legislature is preserved and is preserved in Ontario.

I think the member who has introduced this resolution would do well to reconsider that. If he wants to do it for his own purposes, for letterheads, for election signs and so on, I think he can do that quite well. But I think in the history books, in Hansard, in the election commission's reference to these names, I think we would do well to preserve that heritage and I am not going to support the member today. I hope to be able to support the member on a future resolution of his.

Mr Cousens: I am very pleased to support the Bill 31, before us today. I happen to believe, in contradiction to the views that have just been expressed by our honourable member, there is a real sense of identification with the name of the riding. In our own area, federally the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville was not included in the federal riding and our federal member, Mr Attewell, was able to take a private member's bill through the federal House to have the riding changed to Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. It is more of a mouthful, but more than anything there is more sense of the people of that area being represented by that member.

When you look at the size of the member's riding, to exclude some 14,000 people from the riding name by virtue of not having them included in it says to them they are not important. The fact that this member is saying he believes East Grenville is important, and the people of Kemptville, Cardinal, the townships of Edwardsburgh, South Gower and Oxford-on-Rideau -- these 14,000 people at least will know someone has taken the time, effort and energy and withstood the barrage of criticism from the honourable NDP to be able to come forward and strongly present --

Mr Runciman: One member.

Mr Cousens: Is it only one member? I hope so. That is good. Look, it is almost feeding time. We will have to look after these guys.

I can just say that I am strongly supportive of this kind of effort of a member to represent his community. People are left out of the political process.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: You have to control this House, Mr Speaker. It is just terrible. I was not even trying to get them upset.

An hon member: You don't have to.

Mr Cousens: I do not have to try, I know. I just have to come along and do what I do.

The problem we have today is that people feel disfranchised by the political system in Canada. I sense there is a growing feeling that people feel once they have elected someone, he is going to do what he wants anyway. They will make promises and then they will say, "That was then, this is now." The members over there are all very familiar with the way in which they got elected and then what they do afterwards.

I am aware of that and so is this House; but so are the people at large. That is why 65% vote in provincial elections, and that is why we end up having people at municipal election time -- this 12 November, when we have municipal election day, how many people really think the people they vote for are going to do what they said they would do? I think we have to have a way of getting people involved in the political process so they feel they are part of it. In fact, this is one way in which one member is able to go back to his municipality and show them he is trying his best to represent all people.

One of the things the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has said to me in the past is that he does not want to think of himself as being of one partisan political party when he is serving his riding. When he is out there serving the people of his communities, he is out there to serve people of any political stripe, whoever comes to him, to his riding office or seeks his assistance. He is there to serve all the people. That is something true of all the members of this House: We are there to serve all the people right across our own ridings.

What we are seeing here through this member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is that by including East Grenville he is making a strong statement to those people who otherwise might feel disfranchised. They will then know this member is their member and someone who seeks to serve them.

I do not think we can ever stop working at representing the people in our ridings. We have a noble responsibility as servants of the people --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I think there is a lesson in it, though, because if we continue through our newsletters keeping in touch to make sure the people know who we are, know we are there to respond to their needs, then in that case they have a sense of saying, "Well, at least someone is trying." I think there is something the member and I and all of us can do to achieve that end. The fact that this is just one small gesture towards that to me shows representative government at its best. I hope there is only one lonely New Democrat who is going to vote against this and all the rest of us will strongly support this bill that is before us today.

Mrs Haslam: I was not going to speak on this, but I have decided that perhaps I should join the fray. I thought seriously of voting against the honourable member's petition, mainly because I have finally learned half of the ridings for everybody when I sit in the chair, and that is no mean feat, as anyone sitting in the chair knows. For instance, there is a Mississauga North, a Mississauga South, a Mississauga West, a Mississauga East. There are some good members in all of those ridings.

They do not sit in alphabetical order, some are here and some are there, and in the matter of Scarborough, besides there being a Scarborough North, a Scarborough South, a Scarborough Centre, a Scarborough East, there is also a Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Originally I was going to say, "Please, I've finally learned that the member comes from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and now you're going to change it." However, I would say that due to the wonderful debate we have engaged in at this time and due to the wonderful arguments put forth by the member's honourable colleagues, I will support his motion at this time, but he should not do it again, please, because I am finally going to learn that it is -- is it S-G-D or S-D-G? S-D-G. I am finally going to have this down pat: S-D-G & East Glengarry.

Mr Villeneuve: East Grenville.

Mrs Haslam: See what I mean? East Grenville. If the member changes it again, I am going to make a few suggestions as to what he can change it to. I will support the member at this time.

Mr Mills: It is a few minutes before we go out to have our lunch, so I will take advantage of these few minutes to say a few words about what my friend the honourable member for those initials and Dundas --

Mrs Haslam: Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry.

Mr Mills: As one gets older, one tends to resist change even greater, and I for one am in that mould. My wife constantly tells me: "You know, you've got to change with the times. You've got to get with it." At least I have got some posh-looking ties now that she has pressed on me to have, and I am really trying to be upbeat, but my background is that I am very much a traditionalist and I watched with some dismay the dismantling of some of the things we have come to know and treasure in Canada.

I am not going to talk about that because I do not want to cause any hard feelings among anybody but, being a traditionalist, I must say that I am awfully sorry to see traditions go, and it does not really matter how minor they are. I had the pleasure of being in the honourable member's riding when I was first elected to this House, and I must say I enjoyed his generosity towards me and that of the constituents he represents. They did not know me and I did not know them, and I appreciate the kindness which the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry extended to me at that time.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members who participated: Scarborough Centre, Bruce, Leeds-Grenville, Oakville South, Huron, Downsview, Markham, Perth and Durham East. I guess there was only one dissenting voice. I certainly appreciate the member for Bruce on the signposts of history, but SD&G has been known as SD&G for a long time, and as members probably have noticed today, I am very proud of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and I say it without difficulty, but I have noticed today with people participating in the debate that they stumbled quite a bit in trying to say it.

In the last election, would you believe, Mr Speaker, the Liberal candidate accused me of not recognizing the people of east Grenville? I find it somewhat strange that the member for Bruce got up and said some great things, and that is fine, but I certainly want to recognize everyone in the riding. The signpost of history for S-D-G has been Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry synonymous with S-D-G. In the newspapers, the abbreviation is used.

Last Saturday, we had the warden's bonspiel in my home town of Maxville; 30 rinks participated. Ron MacDonell, our present warden, the 142nd warden of S-D-G, sponsored this in conjunction with George Currier, the reeve of Maxville and the past warden.

We are steeped in history. The signpost of history S-D-G remains, and certainly I was pleased that the member for Bruce along with the member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned my predecessor, the late Osie Villeneuve. He left a tremendously large pair of boots to fill and I am still trying.

DISABILITY INSURANCE

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Beer has moved private members' resolution 5.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Villeneuve has moved second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

DISABILITY INSURANCE

The House divided on Mr Beer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-18

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Daigeler, Elston, Fawcett, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, Offer, Perruzza, Poirier, Poole, Silipo, Sola, Sterling, Sullivan, White.

Nays-34

Abel, Bisson, Carr, Cooper, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jordan, Klopp, MacKinnon, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Runciman, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, M., Waters, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1213.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Bradley: I rise to draw to the attention of members of the House the tragic event that occurred 15 kilometres south of Hamilton, where two innocent victims of crime, Donna and Arnold Edwards, were found dead last Thursday in their rural home.

Members may be aware that the family of the victims held a news conference at which they issued an understandably emotional plea to elected legislators to close the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to victimize innocent and vulnerable people in our society.

Much has been said and done about the rights of accused people and convicted criminals, but precious little attention has been paid to the victims of crime. Clearly, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services, along with their federal counterparts, must develop and implement new regulations, policies and laws designed to confine dangerous people to a secure institution, rather than routinely releasing such individuals on bail, where they commit further crimes while out of custody.

Donna and Arnold Edwards refused to keep a weapon in their home because they believed the judicial system would protect them. Instead, it failed them. Those of us who are elected representatives must act now to ensure that this tragic and avoidable crime is not repeated. For the Edwards family, it is too late. For others, it is not.

JEFF LANGDON

Mr Jordan: Today, I rise to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of a young man from Lanark-Renfrew. Jeff Langdon began skating at five years of age to prepare himself for hockey. He decided, however, he did not wish to play hockey, but to skate, and in 1984, at the age of nine, he won the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club championship and his first gold medal.

This year, at age 15, Jeff was the novice men's Canadian champion in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 8 February 1991, and the Canada Games gold medal winner at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 27 February 1991.

Jeff is proud of his affiliation with the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club, and continues to represent the club and the town of Smiths Falls at all competitions, although he has been training at the Mariposa School of Skating in Barrie. Jeff is currently on the junior national team, and is looking forward to an international assignment. His ultimate dream is to represent Canada in the Olympic Games.

Jeff is a dedicated grade 10 student, and had an average of 80%. He will be 16 in August 1991.

On 31 March it will be my pleasure, on behalf of the Premier, to present Jeff a national achievement award during the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club's annual carnival. The people of Lanark-Renfrew are proud of Jeff

Langdon and his family, parents Al and Karen and sister Christi.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mrs MacKinnon: In Lambton, 1991 is a reason to celebrate. Many may say, "What is there to celebrate?" One celebration is 17 through 21 September, when the International Plowing Match comes to Lambton county. This prestigious affair is the largest farm and machinery exposition in the world. The highlight of the week is the plowing competition, which goes on every day of the plowing match.

You will see all ages of women and men participate in the plowing competition, where modern farm machinery will be used along with horse and plow as done in the years past. And oh, yes, MPPs will also plow. There will also be hearth, home and hobby programs along with food tents, a fashion show, arts and crafts, quilts and souvenirs.

Visitors and participants from all over North America will be in the township of Enniskillen in the county of Lambton to celebrate this international event located 45 minutes from London and 15 minutes from Sarnia, where accommodation is plentiful, affordable and comfortable. It promises to be a spectacular show for everyone to enjoy, and an opportunity for many to visit the beautiful and interesting attractions in Lambton area. This is a reason to celebrate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Offer: I would like to draw the attention of the House to a punishment this government is inflicting upon 15,000 injured workers across the province this holiday weekend. As the Minister of Labour prepares to enjoy the four-day Easter holiday, I understand 15,000 recipients of pension cheques from the Workers' Compensation Board got cheques dated tomorrow, 29 March, Good Friday.

As members will be aware, banks and financial institutions are closed tomorrow, and indeed many until next Monday. This means that 15,000 injured workers will have no money over this four-day period, and indeed for many families in Ontario this will result in a severe hardship. This can only be referred to as negligence of the highest order, and yet the government, the Minister of Labour and the Premier would rather mess around at the top of the Workers' Compensation Board by handing out patronage appointments to prior NDP members than clean up the chaos at the bottom which their clumsy meddling has encouraged.

This government had better examine the values it holds and whether those values are being demonstrated in the shoddy, inept and uncaring treatment the Workers' Compensation Board has offered the thousands of injured workers across the province since it took power. The Minister of Labour must immediately find a way to ensure that this problem is rectified for the 15,000 families this weekend.

SIMCOE COUNTY CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last year, a ministry audit described the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society to be a model agency for the delivery of child welfare services. Today, the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society is in deep trouble. While I am grateful for the ministry's decision to cash flow the society until the end of this summer, this is a short-term Band-Aid applied to a long-term, systemic problem.

The Simcoe County Children's Aid Society is losing the battle to balance government's demands for service with the shortfall in provincial funding.

After several discussions with the executive and officials of the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society, I realize how critical their needs are. As a result, I wrote to the minister to address Simcoe county's concerns, and I am pleased that she has at least seen fit to acknowledge these needs in the short term.

However, the day I spent with a society field worker left a profound impact on me. I know at first hand the real need for the services provided by children's aid societies, especially in Simcoe county, and I also realize their problems cannot be wished away with quick fixes.

With the continued increase in unemployment in the area, coupled with the area's dramatic growth in recent years, I am deeply concerned about the future of this children's aid society.

I am calling on the minister to show leadership and respond to the very real and serious problems that face the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society, and I am requesting that she do so immediately.

EASTER ACTIVITIES

Mr Hansen: I would like to inform the House of some of the events taking place in my riding of Lincoln this coming weekend.

The Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are hosting a hawk-watching open house on Good Friday, 29 March, with a rain date of Saturday, 30 March, at the Beamer Memorial Conservation Area on the Niagara Escarpment just above Grimsby.

The open house will run from 10 am to 3 pm and will feature a demonstration of hawks in the hand from the Ontario Veterinary College's wild bird clinic. There will also be a hawk and owl display, weather permitting. There will be a good migration of hawks on their way north flying over Beamer, and there will be experts on hand to identify the birds.

Every spring from March till May thousands of red-tailed, rough-legged, broad-winged and many other hawks fly past Beamer Memorial Conservation Area on their way to the nesting grounds. The Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch counts the birds in each flight, each year, to help assess the health of the Ontario hawk population. The Hawkwatch is a new organization comprised of people who enjoy this laid-back but fascinating hobby. Everyone is welcome to attend the hawk-watching open house. Dress warmly, bring a lawn chair and learn about some of the most interesting birds that fly through the area.

Also, just east of Grimsby on Sunday 31 March visit the Maple Syrup Days at Vineland Quarries sugar bush at Vineland for demonstrations of maple syrup making from the early Indian ways to the present-day technology.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Phillips: I would like to bring to the attention of the government what I believe to be a clever, but I think vicious attempt to undermine the credibility of one of its cabinet ministers.

Most members will recall that when I was the Minister of Labour, Bill 208 on occupational health and safety was passed by the Legislature. The Minister of Labour, then the NDP Labour critic, the member for Hamilton East, could not contain his anger about the bill.

He said about Premier Peterson, when he was talking about Bill 208, and this is him referring to Premier Peterson, "He was so doggone deep in the pockets of business and the contractors in this province that if he were human he would have choked to death on the lint in their pockets."

He even attacked me, as the Minister of Labour. He said I was the champion of business and a chump for labour. He said I was a pretty pathetic example of a Minister of Labour in Ontario. He obviously felt bad about the bill.

Now the part where it seems somebody is deliberately trying to undermine his credibility and indeed to make him appear hypocritical: In the 19 March edition of the business publication the Financial Post is a story that is headlined "Labour Minister Praises New Workplace Legislation." "This legislation represents some of the most progressive health and safety regulations in North America...We believe its provisions...will prove an effective tool in achieving safer, healthier and more productive workplaces."

I hope the government can find who put this in. Obviously the minister could not have done it. I hope they are able to restore his credibility by finding who would do something like this.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr B. Murdoch: The people in Meaford and in the township of St Vincent are fast losing patience with the Minister of the Environment. As she well knows, the present dump site in the area is almost full and she will not let them open a new one.

On 5 December I raised the issue in the House and advised the minister, in case her staff had neglected to do so, that we are facing a crisis. On 31 January I wrote the minister reminding her of the situation and asked that she meet with local municipal officials to try to find a solution. I have received no answer.

On 21 February John Lowe, chairman of the joint landfill committee, wrote to the minister again, enclosing a copy of my letter, begging her to sit down with them and discuss the problem. The minister has ignored them.

Does the minister simply not care that because of her inaction garbage will be piling up in the streets? Does the minister feel that she is too far removed from the people of this province to worry about their problems? Does the minister plan anything? Why will she not even respond to our letters and grant us the courtesy of the meeting?

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS

Mr Perruzza: I rise today to congratulate an outstanding individual from our Downsview community who is the intended appointee as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr Odoardo Di Santo served as a member for Downsview in this Legislature from 1975 to 1985. In that period he acquired remarkable expertise in defending and fighting for injured workers and guiding them through the Workers' Compensation Board process.

This commitment was recognized in 1985 by all parties when Mr Di Santo was appointed as director of the office of worker adviser, where he has served to date. He has done a remarkable job in assisting injured workers and ensuring that they receive fair compensation for their injuries. His in-depth understanding of the board and his understanding of the plight of injured workers and their families will serve him well as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board. The challenges facing Mr Di Santo are many, but through his hard work and dedication he has earned the respect of our communities.

Further, I wish to congratulate Father Massey Lombardi on his intended appointment as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. A resident of Downsview, I have had the pleasure of working with Father Lombardi on the North York mayor's committee on race and ethnic relations from 1986 to 1988. He brings extensive knowledge, experience and a balanced perspective to his new responsibilities.

I am confident our communities will be well served by the appointment of Odoardo Di Santo as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board and Father Massey Lombardi as a member of the police services board.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY / L'INDUSTRIE CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUE ONTARIENNE

Hon Mr Marchese: Today I am pleased to be able to announce a package of initiatives to support the film industry in Ontario. The Ontario film investment program, or OFIP, has been running for two years now and is set to expire 31 March, just a few days away. We have decided to extend the program for another two years because it has been so successful in bringing needed investment to this province and in creating jobs.

Since April 1989, OFIP has supported 63 Ontario-based film or television productions. Together, these 63 productions have provided 1,775 full-year jobs and resulted in more than $200 million in total spending in this province alone, and we know the spinoff effect of this spending creates other jobs and ripples through the economy.

Depuis le mois d'avril 1989, le programme d'investissement dans l'industrie cinématographique ontarienne a contribué à 63 productions cinématographiques ou télévisées en Ontario. Ces productions ont permis de créer 1775 emplois annuels et ont entraîné des dépenses de plus de 200 millions de dollars dans notre province. Nous savons que les effets indirects de ces activités donnent lieu à la création d'autres emplois et ont des répercussions à travers l'ensemble de l'économie.

This is an industry that employs 35,000 people and has a combined direct and indirect economic impact of more than $5 billion in Ontario alone. That ranks it among the province's 20 largest industries. This is truly culture at work.

There is a strong industrial, craft and post-production base in Ontario; in other words, a lot of talented people whom we want to see working here. Through the Ontario Film Development Corp, we will spend over $31 million during the next two years to foster investment in the film and television industry. The bulk of that spending, some $28.7 million, will go to the OFIP program, which allows Ontario investors to recoup 20% of their investment in an eligible Canadian-content television production and up to 25% of their costs for comparable feature film productions.

La plus grande

partie de ce montant, soit 28,7 millions de dollars, sera consacrée au PIICO, qui permet aux investisseurs de récupérer 20% de leur investissement dans une production télévisée canadienne et jusqu'à 25% dans une production cinématographique canadienne.

I have talked about the jobs that are created in the film industry and the investment that is attracted here through incentive funding, but I want to acknowledge the intrinsic value of this very powerful and influential cultural sector. I want to make it clear that we are not simply finding one more way to create jobs and stimulate the economy. What we are doing with funding initiatives that I am announcing today is recognizing the importance of investing in our cultural resources.

I believe we have an obligation to protect the cultural integrity of this province, with its unique blend of many cultures, in the face of a culturally overwhelming American neighbour and in the absence of any new federal initiatives to protect the film and television sector.

In addition to the major OFIP program, the OFDC will also receive funding for another very successful initiative designed to assist arts and multicultural production and development. This $1-million yearly budget will go to support film and television productions of performing arts and multicultural groups. Today I am announcing a grant of $2 million for this initiative, $1 million for each of the next two years.

Since 1989, the $2 million dedicated to the arts and multicultural programming has brought in more than four times that amount in total investment and has made it possible to film live performances of theatre, dance, music, opera and multicultural events and subjects. This extends the life of cultural events beyond their immediate audience and preserves it for viewing in other places and at other times.

The province will also direct $165,000 to repertory cinemas to help promote and advertise recent Canadian productions; this initiative will be known as the film exhibition pilot project and will include a study to determine the feasibility of its extension to smaller communities across Ontario. We have worked closely with the rep houses to design this pilot project. It is a precedent-setting, one-year case and it is going to increase awareness of and therefore attendance at Canadian films.

They win awards, they are seen around the world, but they are massively overshadowed by the foreign films that continue to dominate our screens. More than 97% of theatrical screen time is devoted to non-Canadian feature films. There is no doubt that we can make wonderful films in this country; now let's make sure that Ontarians have an opportunity to view this cinematic wealth.

Finally, we will contribute $150,000 towards the cost of developing a strategic plan for the film and video industry. This plan will be developed by this government, in collaboration with industry representatives and will address the many obstacles to film and television production, distribution and exhibition in this province. It will allow us to move beyond short-term solutions. We know what the problems are; let's use some creative and strategic thinking to solve them and guarantee greater cultural strength to future generations.

In total, the programs I have described amount to more than $31 million, but let us keep in mind the much larger impact of investments like this. It will bring in many times that amount of investment dollars to a sector that provides thousands of jobs and thousands of hours of cultural programming. It sends a clear message to producers, directors, writers, actors, designers and film crew members that we in government know their work is important and we value it and support it.

Few other sectors tap into the priorities of this government to this extent. Whether we are talking about diversified economic development, cultural sovereignty, intercultural understanding or environmental awareness, since film and television production is an environmentally low-impact industry, we can point to the film and television with pride.

It is a pleasure to announce these programs and to move ahead with another two years of exciting and innovative film and television production in Ontario.

NATIVE ISSUES

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members of this House that this government will begin the process of resolving a land claim that has been outstanding for more than 200 years. The process begins with a statement of intent signed with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. This statement spells out our intent to (1) enter land claim negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake by 15 June 1991 and (2) develop agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake on hunting and fishing for food in the area they claim as their traditional territory.

I want to assure this House that we are pursuing the process of public consultation that will continue to be a feature of our efforts in negotiating the agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. Through these agreements, we will clearly demonstrate the commitment of all sides to the conservation of game, fish and other resources and to the protection of public safety.

As members know, the Algonquins of Golden Lake have filed a substantial land claim to a large part of the Ottawa Valley, including Algonquin Park. The Algonquins first asked to have their rights recognized in the late 18th century, and still nothing has been done. It is in the best interests of the Algonquins of Golden Lake, all of Ontario and indeed all of Canada to settle this land claim rather than wait and have the matters settled by the courts.

I have written to my federal counterpart, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, inviting him to join in these important land claim negotiations. Ontario wants to see a full resolution of this land cl