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

December 12, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L138 - Thu 12 Dec 1996 / Jeu 12 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DENTAL CARE

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

GUELPH BUSINESSES

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH BICENTENNIAL AWARDS

EDUCATION FINANCING

OSHAWA MUSEUMS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

BRAMPTON HOCKEY FRANCHISE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ONTARIO WORKS

CARDIAC SURGERY

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LONG-TERM CARE

PETITIONS

TAX REDUCTION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

RENT REGULATION

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

NURSING STAFF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

BEAR HUNTING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

EDUCATION FINANCING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DE LA COLLECTIVITÉ

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DENTAL CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I wish to draw to the attention of all members of this House the recommendation of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council in the matter of the dental hygiene referral. Dental hygienists have asked for the legal right to self-initiate their authorized acts of scaling, root planing and curettage in specific situations without the necessity of an order from a dentist. The objective is to reflect current practice and facilitate access to needed oral hygiene care.

The council concluded, and I quote from page 24 of its report, "HPRAC is of the view that the proposed amendment, with the intended restrictions and safeguards allowing dental hygienists to self-initiative in specific situations, fulfils the public interest principles of access, equality, accountability and quality of care while not constituting an increased risk of harm to the public."

I understand that the former Minister of Health has asked the dental hygiene and dentistry regulatory colleges to try and arrive at a mutually agreeable regulatory solution rather than proceeding with a statutory amendment at this time. I note that the advisory council expressed reservations about this approach that the former minister had decided to take. The council very much supported a statutory solution. Nevertheless, we on this side hope against hope that a regulatory solution can be arrived at, and I advise the new Minister of Health and the two colleges that we will be watching very carefully for progress.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm happy to note that after weeks of silence, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation has finally responded to the calls from the arts community and announced that she will be appealing the Ontario Court decision regarding the McMichael Canadian Art Collection.

I want to congratulate the minister in doing that but also to ask her what took so long. It was exactly because of the complex issues which the ruling raised that the minister should have decided much earlier to proceed with appealing the decision rather than putting people through a month of turmoil as they awaited her decision and the government's decision. But I'm not surprised at that hesitation, because it's quite consistent with the approach that this minister and this government have been taking to the whole arts community today.

In fact, as I met this morning with the Ontario Arts Network, they painted a grim picture of the climate that they find themselves in today and that the whole arts community finds itself in. The Harris government is clearly responsible for that: $12 million cut from the Ontario Arts Council in one year; 40% slashed from arts service organizations.

Earlier this month we learned of the demise of two Ontario publishers, a direct result of the end of the provincial loan guarantee program, and more publishers are under threat when their guarantees are pulled at the end of this month. For very little cost, this program secured jobs and businesses. It may end up costing the taxpayer a lot more to wind down failed businesses than it would have cost to continue to support them with this program.

I want to say to this minister, you've put yourself back, at least on this decision, on the good road. I hope you will continue to go back on the good road to supporting the arts --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

GUELPH BUSINESSES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Imagine if you will that this room is a steel culvert completely covered in soil, and then imagine on top of that 18-metre-high structure a paved roadway. The soil-and-steel structure I've just described would be the largest of its kind, and one just like this was built by Armtec Construction Products of Guelph. The company that transported this structure to its present location was MacKinnon Transport Ltd, also of Guelph.

The accomplishments of MacKinnon Transport and Armtec Construction are not limited to the world's largest soil-and-steel structure. Armtec Construction Products has supplied products and engineering solutions to challenges of the civil engineering industry since 1907 in Winnipeg. The company moved to Guelph in 1908. MacKinnon Transport is a family-owned business that has operated in Guelph since 1929. They were first approached by Armtec to figure out how to haul these large culverts.

I was recently honoured to attend the 50th anniversary celebration of this unique partnership that has been one of the most successful in Guelph's history. We often speak of public-private partnerships as the direction for success for a strong Ontario. This partnership is a shining example of the innovative ways that small businesses have joined together to the greater success of the individual companies. It's my pleasure today to recognize MacKinnon Transport and Armtec Construction Products as they celebrate the 50th anniversary of a partnership that teaches us all about successful business relationships.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH BICENTENNIAL AWARDS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Last week the city of Scarborough held its bicentennial civic awards. It was a truly outstanding event recognizing 200 outstanding individuals who have been associated with Scarborough.

I might add that the list was very impressive: from the music area, Peter Appleyard, Geddie Lee, Kim Mitchell, Barenaked Ladies, Liona Boyd, Carole Pope; among the actors, Jim Carrey and Mike Myers; from sports, which Scarborough is well known for, Cindy Nicholas, Syl Apps, Dave Keon and Steve Stavro. We're very proud that three former chiefs of police are from Scarborough: Jack Marks, Harold Adamson and Bill McCormack; author Arthur Hailey; and newspeople Christine Bentley, Jack Dennett, Glenn Cochrane, David Onley and Henry Shannon.

I'm told that the loudest applause last night was for one of the recipients, our own Queen's Park bureau chief from Global, Robert Fisher. At least, that's what Robert Fisher told me. He did get the award, but I arrived there after the presentation. In all seriousness, it was a truly fine event put on by Scarborough recognizing 200 very outstanding individuals, including Robert Fisher, the bureau chief.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On November 27, parents from seven schools in my riding held a vigil outside my office to express their concerns about this government's cuts to education. This vigil was part of a province-wide protest organized by People for Education, one of the many grass-roots groups springing up all over the province to fight the cuts to our basic social programs.

Parents with small children are not a special interest group. They are the mainstream of our society. I will be forwarding these letters and petitions to the minister, and I want in particular to thank People for Education for giving these parents the opportunity to be heard.

OSHAWA MUSEUMS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is with great pride that I rise to address the House today regarding the Canadian Automotive Museum and the Sydenham Museum in my riding of Oshawa.

The city of Oshawa is the Canadian birthplace of the automobile. The Canadian Automotive Museum, with its collection of over 60 vehicles, including some of the rarest automobiles produced in Canada, is a part of Oshawa's heritage. The collection includes the earliest Canadian-made model T, circa 1909, as well as a Rolls Royce 1912 limousine and a 1926 Bentley. The museum offers an opportunity to see and experience the development of the automobile in Canada from the turn of the century.

The Canadian Automotive Museum in Oshawa is a non-profit organization that is at the forefront of Canadian institutions featuring automotive collections. The collection of automobiles has in the past been valued at over $25 million.

The Oshawa Sydenham Museum is a museum of local history and is managed by the Oshawa Historical Society. The museum displays artifacts associated with life in the 1800s and early 1900s through three historical homes: Guy House, Robinson House and Henry House. The Oshawa Sydenham Museum also provides a valuable resource for researchers of local history, as the Oshawa community archives is available through the museum.

The Canadian Automotive Museum and the Oshawa Sydenham Museum preserve and present the rich history of Oshawa. They are valuable parts of Oshawa's community as they maintain Oshawa's link with its roots and draw to the museums people not only from around the province, but also from around the world. I invite all members and everyone to visit these historical parts of Oshawa.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the release of the preliminary report of the local hospital restructuring committee in Niagara this morning, some of the worst fears of Niagara residents have been realized; namely, the possible closing of hospitals in St Catharines, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Port Colborne.

At no time during the provincial election campaign did any Conservative candidate recommend the closing of any hospital in Niagara. Premier Harris, when asked during the party leaders' debate in 1995 if he intended to close hospitals, replied, "Well, certainly, I can guarantee you that it's not my plan to close hospitals." I intend to hold Premier Harris to that commitment in Niagara.

By announcing the chopping of $38 million in hospital budgets in Niagara, the Conservative government has put a cloud over the future of hospitals in St Catharines, Port Colborne and Niagara-on-the Lake. The opportunity is there for the Ministry of Health to enhance and improve hospital services, not use the meat axe to cut valuable health care to an aging population in our part of the province. The opportunity is there to bring to St Catharines important services for which Niagara patients are now required to travel to Hamilton, London or Niagara to receive.

It is unacceptable to me to have the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines closed, and I intend to fight alongside thousands of St Catharines residents to keep the Hotel Dieu open for many years to come and to continue to provide excellent health care.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to raise with the members the case of Rita Iturrequi, a constituent of mine from Blind River, who has been having problems with her family support plan payments. Her ex-husband's employer has been deducting the money from his paycheque, but she's not getting anything. As of July 25, 1996, when the government decided to wreck the system, the balance owed by her ex-husband was zero. However, now it's over $2,400, and yet the money has been taken off his cheque all along.

Mrs Iturrequi contacted our office. We faxed the office in Toronto. They sent a fax back with a scribbled note in the margin, the same fax, which was illegible. We faxed back and asked for a response for Mrs Iturrequi, because she has two children, one in high school in grade 11 and one in grade 8. She has had to work at four part-time jobs to support herself and her children while she has not been receiving her ex-husband's money. She also has a legal aid bill of over $8,000 and a lien on her home, which she wants to pay.

Why is it that the money is coming off her husband's cheque regularly and it is not arriving with her? Why is it the Attorney General continues to argue that this is a longstanding problem instead of resolving the problem and ensuring people like Mrs Iturrequi and her children get the money?

BRAMPTON HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I rise today to congratulate Mr Scott Abbott, the co-creator of the board game Trivial Pursuit, on his successful bid for an Ontario Hockey League team for Brampton. Last week, the OHL board of governors approved Brampton as a franchise for the 1998-99 season. Brampton has a long and proud history of supporting minor hockey.

Brampton residents, led by Mayor Peter Robertson, are to be commended for their massive show of support for their hockey team. A campaign to collect thousands of signatures from local residents was highly successful, with over 40,000 signatures collected in just six days.

An OHL franchise will bring many economic benefits to our city and heighten our sense of pride. In May, a private consortium will begin to build a 6,000-seat arena with three additional ice surfaces, a fine example of a public-private partnership between the city and the private sector. This facility will be able to host hockey tournaments, curling bonspiels, figure skating championships, trade shows and concerts.

Once again, Brampton residents have done our city proud. I join them in anticipation of the opening face-off in October 1998.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): One of the essential elements in preventing crime is eliminating the payoff; in other words, removing the motivation to gain something from it. Today I'm doing just that.

To do this successfully, we must train dedicated and skilled police officers in a very specific method of investigation. That's why this government is expanding the provincial proceeds of crime unit with funding from the provincial proceeds of crime funds. The unit will work in partnership with the RCMP proceeds of crime integrated task force currently operating in the greater Toronto area.

The funding for the unit is coming directly from the sale of criminally obtained assets. Not only will convicted criminals not profit from their crimes, but they'll find their assets used to fight crime. This initiative will give police an important tool in their fight against organized crime.

In addition, the ministry has received a commitment from the federal government for just over $1 million in further proceeds of crime funding. These moneys are the result of a memorandum of understanding between Ontario and the federal government signed in January 1996.

The Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario will administer funding for the provincial proceeds of the crime unit because of its extensive experience in this area through its joint forces operation program.

The day-to-day supervision of the unit will be the responsibility of the officer in charge of the RCMP proceeds of crime integrated task force in Newmarket.

In addition to the nine existing RCMP officers, we will be expanding the unit to include four OPP officers, two Metropolitan Toronto Police Service officers, two York Regional Police Service officers, one Peel Rgional Police Service officer and one Durham Regional Police Service officer, for a total of 19 officers, the largest of such units in Canada.

This government already has in place a provincial policy that ensures that illegally obtained property is returned to its rightful owners and that goods or profits obtained as a result of criminal activity, such as drug dealing, theft, fraud or money laundering, are forfeited at the end of successful criminal prosecution.

The provincial proceeds of crime initiative not only complement the existing policy, it strengthens the tools police need to fight profit-motivated crime.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to respond to the minister's statement. I gather from the statement that this adds three OPP officers to the unit and that the rest of the resources will come from other police forces.

Certainly ensuring that the public recovers the proceeds of crime is an important objective. The Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario seems to be an organization made up of our senior police officers who provide the government with good advice, and they've informed us that they expect to see lots more profit from organized crime.

The minister will recall that the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, the organization that will administer this, was the same organization of senior police officials that advised the government of how inappropriate it was to proceed with video lottery terminals, video slot machines, and warned the government that they are simply inviting organized crime to participate much more fully in Ontario. So it should come as no surprise that they're supportive of plans to try and recover some of the money that they've warned you organized crime is going to reap.

It was perhaps three weeks ago that this House, or at least the government, forced through a bill that legalized video lottery terminals, despite the warning of the very same organization, the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario, that it's a mistake, that it will not get rid of illegal VLTs but will simply expand the infiltration of organized crime. For those of us who are worried about organized crime, you've ignored the major report the government has from this organization. What we've got today is that announcement of three additional OPP officers.

The second point I want to make is that prevention of crime is extremely important for all of us. You ran on this platform, in the Common Sense Revolution: "This plan guarantees full funding for law enforcement."

What have we actually seen in terms of full funding for law enforcement? We have seen the government cut grants to municipalities, the support the province provides for municipalities, and the major budget for municipalities is police organizations. You have cut their support in half. They are getting half the money they used to get from the province of Ontario, and recognize that that goes heavily to police organizations.

You have cut $250 million out of the Attorney General's budget, and even the Solicitor General's budget has been cut by $16 million. So the announcement today of adding three OPP officers to this unit to recover the benefits of crime comes at the same time as this government has decided to cut, cut, cut the support for crime prevention, the support for our police organizations around the province. Support for municipalities cut in half: $800 million, a huge amount of money, cut from the budgets. The Attorney General's budget is slashed. That's the one that enforces through the court system. Even the Solicitor General's budget is cut.

The announcement today is designed to recover the benefits of crime, and the police organizations are warning us that, yes, they'll recover more money because there's going to be more crime. Why? Because we'll have legalized video lottery terminals against the advice of your own Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario and you have cut municipalities' budgets in half, the support from the province. You have cut the Attorney General's budget and you've cut the Solicitor General's budget.

The announcement today should be put within the context of all of those things. Certainly no one in this House would suggest that it is not totally appropriate to recoup the proceeds of crime, but everyone in this House should recognize that those proceeds will increase because crime prevention is being cut and slashed in this province.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I too am pleased that this announcement has been made because I think, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt pointed out, all of us in this House believe the tools should be there to prevent the growth of crime in our province. But he is also right to say that this is a particularly poignant moment for this kind of announcement when this Legislature has passed a bill in the face of the very clear advice of police in this province about the growth of organized crime because of the growth of legalized video slot machines.

It is extremely important for us to realize that it is also in the context of greatly reduced budgets in the Attorney General's ministry and in the Ministry of the Solicitor General in terms of crime. Most people don't recognize that one of the cost-saving measures required of the police in this province was to disband the anti-rackets squad. That was one of the early results of a decision in the ministry to reduce OPP funding by a huge amount. This minister has constantly tried to counter the reality of the kinds of cuts that have been made and the kinds of pressures that police forces are under by making this kind of announcement.

I understand that this morning in his press conference the minister made some comment about the reason our government was not able to put this into effect being because we couldn't reach an agreement between the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. He is quite right, because the Ministry of the Solicitor General was insisting on having all of the proceeds of crime. That was the advice our minister was getting. I am delighted that the minister took the advice of the member for Hamilton-Wentworth to know that the prosecution of these crimes is extremely important.

It is extremely important that we understand the continuum of the charging with crime, of the enforcement of the Criminal Code and then the prosecution of those kinds of events. He is quite right to point out that this continuity is required if we're going to be successful. So I'm very pleased that the two ministries were finally able to come to an agreement that you cannot have the one without the other, and I'm delighted that is part of this proposal.

However, I must say that this kind of joint force is dependent upon a particular income, a particular $1 million that has now been forwarded by the federal government, really tells us that this is still temporary funding. Yes, we expect that it will be successful and that there will be more proceeds of crime, but whenever you base the enforcement of the law on a particular program which is either fines or proceeds of crime, it's a very dangerous undertaking. What happens if an investigation takes a long time and a prosecution takes a long time and those moneys do not come back to the government?

I'd be much more confident that this is going to be a permanent part of the law enforcement program in this province if this government were taking unequivocal responsibility for ensuring that its part of this force is there no matter what happens in terms of the income from a particular part of proceeds of crime. It is extremely dangerous for us to tell the people of Ontario that we have improved the enforcement of the law through a means like this when it is dependent upon the income that may be generated, because that often is a long time coming in.

I congratulate the government on having reached this deal, but I would urge them to make it clear that whatever happens in terms of income from proceeds of crime, this kind of force is needed in Ontario. It's needed more than it ever has been before because of the increased opportunity for organized crime in this province as a result of the actions taken by this government and as a result of the deregulation in many areas that is going to encourage money laundering, is going to encourage the kind of crime that is very difficult to enforce.

So I'm glad this force is going to be in place, but I am very sceptical that it is the kind of permanent good news that the minister is trying to convince us it is.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd just like to notify the House that this is the last day for the legislative pages. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and appreciate the hard work and effort they put in. I hope they enjoyed their stay as much as we certainly enjoyed having them. Thank you.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am wondering why the pages would be leaving one week before the Legislature is going to close down. If it's a matter of money, I think the provincial government is spending $2,600 a day for --

The Speaker: No. They're supposed to go back to school, I believe, next Monday.

Interjections.

The Speaker: And I thought this was non-controversial.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is for the Premier. It's been almost a week since the former Minister of Health resigned because his most trusted senior adviser disclosed highly sensitive and confidential information with the intent of smearing a private Ontario citizen.

We asked you on Tuesday to release the log of all requests for OHIP information from the minister's office and all corresponding OHIP documentation. You indicated, and I quote, "That would be fine." That information can be obtained and copied in a matter of minutes. You've had almost three full days. Why are you denying us this very simple request? What are you trying to hide?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health has that information.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): As all the members of this Legislature know, the privacy commissioner is doing an investigation into this matter. This government has moved expeditiously; I think this government has moved with lightning speed. The individual involved has resigned. The Minister of Health has taken a very honourable position, one that I might say members of the opposition in various circumstances in other governments did not take, and he resigned. Indeed, the government has called in the privacy commissioner to investigate this matter.

I will say that I did talk to the privacy commissioner this morning. The privacy commissioner has started the investigation, is eager to get on with the investigation and has expressed no reservations about the investigation. I think we should allow the privacy commissioner to fulfil his responsibility.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious the Premier does not want to get involved in this matter. He's trying to stonewall. The Minister of Health, all your answers are inconsistent over there. Is it any wonder that we're becoming more suspicious on this side, and that as each and every day goes by more and more people are becoming suspicious of why you're trying to prevent us from getting at the truth.

Let me tell you why the logs are so important, Premier and Minister. They'll help us understand how the private information of a Peterborough doctor was obtained when and by whom. That's what we've been asking you for a number of days. Yesterday, the Deputy Premier stated that "there is nothing to indicate that anyone in the former minister's office requested any confidential information, including the minister." How would he know that? Has he seen the minister's office log or the corresponding OHIP logs? How would he know that?

Hon David Johnson: I'll reiterate again that this is an investigation being conducted by the privacy commissioner and I will say that the privacy commissioner himself has expressed concern about the release of information that would be the subject of his investigation. The member opposite may wish to sit back and reconsider, because the privacy commissioner feels that his investigation should be allowed to proceed and that all of the information, log information or e-mail registration information, whatever is involved, should be focused on his study. The privacy commissioner has grave concerns about what the member for Lawrence is recommending.

Mr Cordiano: The answers are even more inconsistent as we hear them every day. What do you expect us to conclude other than the fact that there is a coverup going on here? What happened? The other day the Premier said he would release the logs. Today he's saying something completely different.

We called OHIP on Tuesday for rules and procedures for the request and disclosure of confidential information by a minister's office. They indicated they would get right back to us. They didn't. We called yesterday. Still nothing.

Premier and Minister, if you've got nothing to hide, then why don't you authorize the release of the logs and the Ministry of Health's protocol for requests of information? What in heaven's name are you trying to hide? What are you hiding behind? Stop covering up.

Hon David Johnson: We have a situation with the privacy commissioner, who is investigating a situation, who has made a recommendation in terms of how he should approach his investigation. He is recommending that this material, log material, all materials involved with this investigation be directed to his investigation. I have the member for Lawrence who doesn't agree with that approach. Perhaps the member for Lawrence would wish to conduct the investigation.

The privacy commissioner is eager to get on with the job. The privacy commissioner is asking that this information be directed, that this log information be directed through him, and is concerned about the release of this until he's had an opportunity to investigate. I would say that we should understand what the privacy commissioner is requesting and we should give him full support in his investigation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. I invite the Premier to stand up and discuss the integrity of his government's handling of the James-Wilson affair because there are questions out there. These are not questions just raised by this side of the House; they exist in the public mind.

If there's an interest on the other side of the House in establishing this, we've heard the new Minister of Health, who wasn't in charge at the time the question I have pertains to, relate to the importance of materials. That's my question, Premier: the evidence. When was the evidence collected from Mr Brett James's office?

We know from the logs released yesterday from the security that there were 10 people through those offices that were supposedly secured. The new Minister of Health said that those offices were secured. Premier, I'd like to hear from you. Have you made it your business to know who secured that information from Mr James's office? When was that evidence secured? Was it by the privacy commissioner's office? Was it by the police? We'd like to hear from you.

Hon Mr Harris: I have called in the acknowledged top expert in the whole of the country, as far as we know, the privacy commissioner, to deal with these matters, and the Minister of Health has answered all the specific questions that you've asked already.

Mr Kennedy: That's completely unacceptable. That is utterly unacceptable if you wish to have a scintilla of integrity attached to your behaviour in this affair. Again, Premier, who secured the evidence in Mr James's office? That is surely information you have.

You cannot be credible in having us believe that in the four days that elapsed before you appointed the privacy commissioner your government handled this in the way that it should have handled it unless you let us know who's got that evidence, how was it taken care of, and did the 10 people who were in those offices on that weekend have access to that information, because there is no way you can assure us the privacy commissioner can do his job if this is the basis on which you're going to leave it, if you're going to leave this question hanging in the air.

Again, Premier, I'd ask you to stand behind the integrity of your handling of this affair and let us know the details of how this evidence, without which this investigation is meaningless, has been handled.

Hon Mr Harris: The acting Minister of Health, the Minister of Health now, has answered those questions. You seem to want to know from me and you want me to answer the questions, so I am happy to answer what I know.

I know this: I know that I have acted faster than any Premier in the history of my election in 1981. I know that the minister involved acted faster when he found an impropriety, that being improper use of information that he had. I know that the minister stepped aside so that the acknowledged top expert -- to this date, I have not heard anybody suggest anybody better than the privacy commissioner, who knows these matters, anywhere in the province. I acted very quickly to move on that.

If you would like me to bring up your government's record, I need only say two words: Joan Smith, and the months it took before anybody moved to do anything.

Mr Kennedy: I have a couple of words for the Premier: government accountability. Let's see some.

The investigation is only as good as the evidence; it's only as good as the frame of reference for this commissioner. You told us that those offices were secured, and we now know that 10 people were walking through them, and you won't tell us who secured the evidence. You may not like it, Premier, but the integrity of your whole government is wrapped into this affair. The integrity of your government is tied to this.

You want us to believe that you set fair terms of reference and you won't even tell us how the evidence came to be in the hands of the privacy commissioner or indeed whether he has that. Now, we've asked for something fair, which if you're interested in seeing integrity brought to this issue you would agree to, which is a commission of inquiry. If you won't at least do that, will you at least do something reasonable: Will you at least allow the proper committee of the Legislative Assembly to meet with the privacy commissioner to review his terms of reference to be assured that he has the evidence and the other means by which to hold a proper investigation?

Hon Mr Harris: The privacy commissioner, who I think you would acknowledge is far more expert in this area than me or you or anybody in this Legislature, has offered and will table his report with the Legislature, and he'd be happy to come and explain his report, talk to you, discuss the findings, and at that particular point in time we can assess that information and actions that were taken.

I have complete confidence that you will find that this minister has acted more honourably than any in the history of my time in the Legislature, since 1981, and that this Premier has acted independently, effectively and as quickly as any Premier has acted.

If there's something else you want, it will all be made available to you, because this privacy commissioner will report to the entire Legislature, and you're a member of that Legislature.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. I want to ask you about Jan Dymond. We understand that she was hired as a public relations consultant on November 22 in the former Minister of Health's office. Brett James was the communications assistant for the former Minister of Health. We understand that Jan Dymond and three other outsiders were in the former Minister of Health's office on the Saturday after Brett James approached a Globe and Mail reporter with confidential information from Ministry of Health files.

Your government has told us that the situation in the former Minister of Health's office called for security procedures to take place in the aftermath of the James incident. Offices were to have been sealed. Can you tell me this: Jan Dymond is a public relations consultant. Why was she in the minister's office on Saturday? What possible reason is there for a public relations consultant being in an office where there is a security breach --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I'll refer it so the Minister of Health can answer.

Hon David Johnson: Jan Dymond has been employed, as indicated, since November 22 with the Ministry of Health. There were roughly 10 people, as I understand, of the Ministry of Health, including Ms Dymond, in the building. It's very general that there would be five or six people working in the building at any given time on the weekend. That's normal circumstance.

There were about four or five more people working on that particular weekend, including Jan Dymond, involved with the negotiations that are under way with the doctors, and there was a negotiating team meeting. Ms Dymond, involved with long-term communications with regard to the negotiations, was in the building in that capacity on that weekend.

Mr Hampton: I'm not sure I got an answer there, but I want to try again. We know that in other situations where the government claims there was a security breach, they immediately called the police and began an investigation. Here there were government spin doctors going in and out of the building even after it was supposed to be sealed.

There is, under Ministry of Health legislation, a security policy manual. According to that security policy manual each and every employee, including GO Temp and contract staff, is to undertake a security briefing and sign an attestation to that security briefing whenever he or she works for the Ministry of Health in any capacity.

The Speaker: The question.

Mr Hampton: This is required by Ministry of Health law. I ask the minister: Has Jan Dymond taken her oath of secrecy? Had she been briefed on the security manual? Did she sign the oath of secrecy, as required by Ministry of Health legislation?

Hon David Johnson: I have asked security questions of the staff of the Ministry of Health and they have assured me that the procedures you're referring to in the employee security and confidentiality orientation manual have been obeyed in their fullest.

Mr Hampton: My question is very specific: Did Jan Dymond, and for that matter did the three other outsiders who were in there on that Saturday, sign the Ministry of Health security policy oath of secrecy? Have they been given the briefing and have they signed for it? I say to the minister: As you know, failure to sign this is a breach of the Public Service Act.

I ask the minister: Will you produce for us now -- you should be able to produce this by the end of question period -- the signed oath and attestation of not only Jan Dymond but of every other individual who was working in the Minister of Health's office that day? Will you produce that for us, please?

Hon David Johnson: First I want to address that there is an assumption of people being in a specific office, but the employees who violated no rules or regulations whatsoever, who had every right to be in this building, who indeed were working in most cases -- not all cases -- on their own time, were in the building in general. Half of them were there for a very specific purpose in terms of the negotiating process which is under way at the present time, and the other people were there in the normal course of doing their duties.

The specific answer to the member's question is that yes, Jan Dymond has signed the confidentiality forms, the proper forms, as is required.

Mr Hampton: I ask the minister to produce the signed oaths. You should be able to produce those by the end of question period.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Everyone knows that your megacity scheme is based on no research, no public consultation and no thought, just on your dream of wiping out local democracy in Metro. Your megacity scheme hasn't even received support from the Golden task force, nor did the handpicked Crombie panel rubber-stamp your scheme. They said this should have at least four months of thought and consultation.

All you've got in your attempt to prove that your scheme would save money is an Ernst and Young study of a year ago in which the consultants were forbidden to talk to anyone who actually runs the services. Now we hear that you've asked KPMG to do a three-week quickie study of perhaps cost savings. Minister, do you confirm that you've commissioned a three-week study by KPMG to try to justify your megacity scheme?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): If there's anything that has been studied in Ontario, it's the governance of the greater Toronto area, and specifically Metro. There have been more studies -- I think the number is 63 -- looking at the various forms of government that are available to us.

We're taking all that information -- the Golden report, the Crombie report, the mayors' report, the Metro report -- we're reviewing them and we're going to come up with the best level of government to serve the people of this province. We also have internal reports or reviews going on and we have an external report going on too.

Mr Hampton: Minister, the perception out there is that this megacity bomb has been dropped on people's heads, that you aren't interested in any studies unless they support your scheme. It is very clear that the Crombie panel does not support your scheme, so I can understand why you want this KPMG study. Since this concerns democracy for all people in the greater Toronto area, since it concerns all the municipalities, which may be wiped off the map, will the minister today table the terms of reference he's given to KPMG as well as any interim reports he's received? Will you also tell us how much you're paying for them?

Hon Mr Leach: I can tell the honourable member across that David Crombie stood up and specifically said that he supports a single city for Metropolitan --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): He was the only one.

Hon Mr Leach: He's the only one? He was in charge of the study. The person who was in charge of the panel has recommended that we have one single city, and I agree with Mr Crombie in that instance.

Yes, we have commissioned a study. The costs of that study are within the Management Board guidelines.

Mr Hampton: It was a very simple question. The minister has commissioned the study. He should be able to provide the people of Toronto with the terms of reference for the study and any ancillary studies. That should not be a problem. You should be able to produce that here today. You should be able to tell the people of Toronto how much you're paying for it.

You should also be able to do this: It seems to me that you're so convinced about your scheme that people across the greater Toronto area deserve a say in this, and they're asking for a say; 75% of the people have said they want a referendum on this. So I ask you, will you make the terms of reference available to people, and will you also give people what they want: some democratic decision-making? Will you give them the referendum they're asking for so that they can tell you, yes or no, they believe in your megacity scheme?

Hon Mr Leach: I will provide the member with a copy of the report and the terms of reference and all that information in the fullness of time. We'll be releasing that report very shortly, and I'll make sure the leader of the third party is one of the very first to get a copy of that report.

In the matter of referendums, I don't know whether the leader of the third party has talked to his backbenchers, but Mr Christopherson, for example, says, "Referendums are not useful in sorting out municipal restructurings." That's probably the first time I've ever concurred with that member. Mr Hampton himself has said that referendums don't work. "We don't need it," Mr Hampton said. "Referendums don't work for municipal restructurings." They're doing more flip-flopping than the Liberals on this situation.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier about the affair with the Ministry of Health and Mr Wilson. The Premier can appreciate that we are very dissatisfied with the approach that's being taken, but I want to take you back to an answer you have on Tuesday.

You talked to the former Minister of Health on Monday morning and reached agreement with him then, I gather, that he would step aside. You then assured the House that you were assured that the records were sealed in both Mr James's office and in Mr Wilson's office. Can you tell the House whom you instructed to seal those offices, and can you assure the House that it was not the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Health's political staff who can be implicated in this, that it was either the police or the privacy commissioner?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I indicated that information when I was asked about it in the Legislature on Tuesday, as best I can recall. I am relaying to the House the information that's been given to me by the Ministry of Health. If you want specifics, the Minister of Health now has as much up-to-date information as he possibly can and is prepared to release everything he can, subject to the top person involved in privacy matters in the province's approval. If you would like to ask the minister that, I know he'd be glad to do that.

Mr Phillips: No, I want to ask you the question. You have the responsibility. You appointed the minister. Something very unacceptable has happened under the minister's nose. You took responsibility. You assured the House that the minister's office and Mr James's records were sealed.

We want to know from you, no one else, because you took charge of this, you issued the instructions, you're now responsible -- it is a very simple question, Premier, that you'll have to answer eventually. I asked you a few moments ago and I ask you again: Whom did you instruct to seal those records? Was it the privacy commissioner or was it the police?

Hon Mr Harris: I didn't instruct anybody to seal the records. The records were sealed without my instruction.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and it concerns Jan Dymond again. We are told that George McCague, a former member of the Legislature, who is a government negotiator in the talks with the Ontario Medical Association and who is one of the people who was at the former Minister of Health's office on that Saturday, said Wednesday evening that he and the three other negotiators representing the government met by themselves to discuss strategy.

McCague said he did not know what other staff members were doing. He said he did not know Dymond or what she might have been doing here. Now the Minister of Health just said she was there involved in negotiations. George McCague, who is one of the government negotiators, says, "No, no, Ms Dymond wasn't involved in any discussions with us." He says he has no idea what Jan Dymond was doing there. I ask you, Premier, if your negotiator doesn't know Ms Dymond and doesn't know what she was doing there, would you please tell us now what a spin doctor was doing in a security --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Health, I know, would have that information.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): It's very simple. Jan Dymond is a communications consultant. She has been in the employ of the Ministry of Health, as the leader of the third party indicated, since November 22. She was in the building on that particular day, being involved in communications, arranging for communications with regard to the negotiations with the doctors, and indeed she was involved in the meeting to some degree.

As with most meetings, the negotiation meeting was a long meeting over a period of time. Mr McCague was there for a certain period of time in the meeting. Ms Dymond was there for a certain period of time in the meeting. Ms Dymond was also doing work in the building on communications. The two members, Mr McCague and Ms Dymond, apparently did not overlap in the meeting, but at various times they both were involved in the meeting, and Jan Dymond was working in the building on communications.

Mr Hampton: Some things are unbelievable and some things are really unbelievable. Here we have someone who is a negotiator, he's negotiating this for the government with the Ontario Medical Association, and he says: "I don't know Dymond. I don't know why she was there, I don't know what she might have been doing and I don't know what other people who were there might have been doing."

It seems passing strange that the government negotiator doesn't know the spin doctor, doesn't know what she's doing there, doesn't know why she's there. I wonder if the Minister of Health can explain that. I'll ask you again, will you produce the security document that Jan Dymond was supposed to have signed, and would you produce McCague's security document as well and the other people who were there?

Hon David Johnson: I think it's pretty clear to anyone other than somebody who wishes not to understand the situation that Jan Dymond has been involved with communications, with the negotiation process since November 22. I understand that she may not have been involved during that whole period, for whatever reason -- apparently Mr McCague has not run into her -- but she certainly has been involved.

On that particular day she was in the building, involved in communications with this particular project. Once again, I have been assured that she has signed the proper confidentiality form, and whatever information can be released in that regard I'm sure we would be more than happy to release.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I know in my riding of Durham East that people have wrestled with the concept of Ontario Works. Can you give us an update on Ontario Works, and more particularly, what happened in the region of Durham yesterday?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you to my colleague for the question. I'm very pleased to report that yesterday, after very cautious and thorough consideration, the Durham region council decided to endorse their plan for workfare to become one of the communities across the province that is delivering our Ontario Works program.

We have 14 of the 20 pilot sites up and running. We've also seen that with the new arrangements we've made for funding and helping to support municipalities in their transitional cost, many more municipalities are getting their plans in to us, and we're quite optimistic and quite excited about the progress that has been happening across the province.

Mr O'Toole: This sounds like very good news for the region of Durham and the people of Durham. I'm certain you will work with them closely to make sure this is successful. But I continue to see media reports that say the deadline for the municipalities to submit their Ontario Works business plan are due in March 1997. This is not my understanding. Would the minister please clarify the issue for the record?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It has been quite a challenge to keep up with all the misinformation that some of our critics have been spreading about what is happening with the Ontario workfare program. One of the things we had heard in the messages from those municipalities that have got workfare up and running was that they felt we needed to do a better job of supporting, both at the staff level and the political level, those communities that are involved in workfare.

One of the ways we've been able to do that is by being a little more generous in the transition costs for them. What we have said is that those municipalities that do get their workfare plans in before the end of March will have more generous transitional funding, because we think that help will actually make them able to move faster in getting these opportunities for those on workfare up and running.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Health. I've been contacted by a family of a woman in southern Ontario who was scheduled to have open heart surgery tomorrow, December 13. She has been on the waiting list for over the past four months.

Jessie has been told that, due to overcrowding in the intensive care unit of the Hamilton Health Sciences general hospital site, her surgery has been cancelled, and that she'll have to wait until some time in 1997, an unspecified date, to have her surgery. Jessie is 65 years old, and she is waiting for triple bypass surgery and that has restricted her life to waiting at home. She's unable to walk more than a few steps without having a problem.

Can the new Minister of Health explain to Jessie, to her family and to others in this province why, after waiting for four months, her surgery has been cancelled, and will he intervene to help her get the surgery she needs?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): As the member for Oriole would appreciate, having been on the job for just a few days since Monday, I won't have all the details, but I am sorry to hear of this particular situation. Certainly there are people today who are not being able to get the kind of health care they deserve.

I would ask the member for Oriole to give me the details of this particular situation and I would be happy to follow through with it. I will say, in general, that this government does firmly believe that the health care system in Ontario needs to be improved. That is why we have followed up on the initiative from the previous government, where they appointed the district health councils and spent some $26 million, I guess, through that process, to bring back in recommendations. We have appointed the restructuring commission to look at restructuring the hospital care in particular, to make it better for people like Jessie in the future.

Mrs Caplan: I can tell the minister why Jessie's surgery has been cancelled. Your government's $1.3-billion cut to hospital budgets in Ontario is the reason why. Your cuts have led to serious service delivery problems in Ontario's hospitals. This patient's family were told by hospital staff that heart patients are dying on the waiting list.

Your government is paying no attention. You've turned a blind eye to the problems that hospitals are facing. You've been pretending that everything is fine and that your restructuring commission closing hospitals is somehow an answer. I say to you, sir, it is not. Everything is not okay, and you, as Minister of Health, are responsible because your government has cut the hospital budgets.

This further setback for Jessie Morris and her family has caused undue and unnecessary stress, and she needs all the help and the strength she can find. Will the Minister of Health stop the detrimental cuts to our hospitals and tell Jessie and her family that she will receive the care that she needs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon David Johnson: I think I should inform the member opposite, the member for Oriole, right at the outset that this government has committed to maintaining health care spending. It was a pledge we made to the people of Ontario. Indeed, the pledge we made to the people of Ontario is to spend at least $17.4 billion, and this year the Minister of Finance has announced $17.7 billion in health care for the province of Ontario.

But the member for Oriole is correct. There is a government in Canada which is cutting health care in our country, which is cutting health care in the province of Ontario, and that government is the federal government. The federal Liberal government is cutting health care in the province of Ontario.

Notwithstanding that, now that we've cleared the record on that, I am sorry to hear of individual circumstances. The decisions are made by the physicians. It's a clinical decision made by physicians. Nevertheless I would be happy to hear the details of this particular case to see if there's anything that could be done.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Your lack of answers to the questions over the last few days has contributed to more confusion and a lack of confidence, a loss of confidence in the security of our health care system.

At the beginning of question period, you said Jan Dymond and other political staff were in the minister's office on the weekend to be there because of negotiations with the doctors. Two thirds through question period we bring evidence to you that a former trusted Tory cabinet minister, George McCague, who's on your negotiating committee, says that's rubbish, that's not true.

You have to see that what is at stake here is confidence in our health care system. There's so much confusion, so many unanswered questions. Isn't it time for you to admit that the commissioner on freedom of information has to be given the power to subpoena witnesses, to have testimony under oath, and to have that done in a public forum? Won't you announce that today to restore confidence in our public health care system?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): It's interesting. I have this morning talked to the privacy commissioner about this very matter and he has expressed confidence to me in his ability to conduct the study. He's expressed eagerness to get on with the study; indeed he has started. He'll be interviewing people here in Toronto and he'll be interviewing people in Kingston and he's anxious to get on with the study.

Other than pulling allegations out of the air, if the member opposite has any evidence, any specific information, I know the privacy commissioner would be delighted to have it. I would invite the member opposite to submit that information to the privacy commissioner, because we want to make sure that he has all the information and that he does a thorough study and gets to the bottom of this whole matter.

Mr Cooke: It's not pulling things out of the air to be quoting George McCague, a former trusted Tory cabinet minister. He's the one who said those people being in the Minister of Health's office on the weekend had nothing to do with the doctors' negotiations. That's not pulling allegations out of the air; that's quoting one of your appointments.

I also spoke to the commissioner yesterday and he said: "Yes, I can carry out the investigation under the act that I administer only, and if everybody cooperates, everybody tells the truth, I don't need the power to subpoena or have people testify under oath. But if you want me to look at anything under any of the Ministry of Health acts, if there's any question about people telling the truth, and if you want it done publicly" -- and if there's ever an instance where this should be done publicly, this is it -- "I have to be given more power."

Minister, will you give him more power so the air can be cleared?

Hon David Johnson: We've indicated right from the beginning that, number one, we have confidence in the privacy commissioner. He has a great deal of experience in this matter and I think he will do a thorough job and will get to the bottom of this. However, we've also indicated that if the privacy commissioner comes back and has indicated any impediments, any problems, we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this investigation is thorough and that we get to the bottom of this matter.

I will reiterate once again, although I've commented on this, that every weekend there are staff in this building. Every weekend there are people who come to work. This may be a concept foreign to the third party, but people are dedicated to their jobs and they do come in and work on the weekend. They're on the whole floor, they're in the whole building, they're in through all the various hundreds of offices that are in a particular building.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Solicitor General. You have said that the government opposes the registration provisions contained in the federal gun control bill, Bill C-68. People in urban ridings and in border communities like mine are concerned about this issue. What alternatives do you support to provide real and effective gun control for Ontario?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This government believes in real gun control and virtually every provision of C-68 with the exception of registration, which is going to accomplish nothing more than to divert police from front lines in this province. We have asked the federal government for a national firearms unit to fight illegal weapons traffic into this province and into this country but they've been less than receptive up to this point.

I am proud to say that for our part, Ontario spends about $1.5 million per year for the provincial weapons enforcement unit, which is staffed by the RCMP, OPP and municipal services. Yesterday, as a result of the hard work of these dedicated front-line officers, the provincial weapons enforcement unit announced that it had made one of the largest seizures of illegal weapons in Canadian history. Project Pinball seized hundreds of illegal weapons, including bazookas and hand grenades, and will result in over 250 charges being laid. This is real gun control in action.

Mr Maves: I read about that seizure and I was particularly pleased to see that Niagara police forces were involved in that. I'd like to congratulate them on that. In Niagara we're aware that smuggling is at the root of much of the problem of these illegal weapons. What other initiatives are being introduced to fight smuggling?

Hon Mr Runciman: I share the member's concerns that something more must be done with respect to smuggling problems, especially as they relate to firearms. Some months ago I wrote to my federal counterpart, Herb Gray, and proposed a summit to deal with the smuggling concerns especially of Ontarians, but I think it could be broadened beyond that. Up to this point Mr Gray has indicated that he may be receptive to this. The federal Attorney General, Mr Rock, has also indicated some interest. I will be meeting with Mr Gray next week, and hopefully some time early in the new year we can have a smuggling summit to deal with these very important issues.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier. I was afraid when the member for Niagara Falls rose in the House he was going to ask a question about the closing of hospitals in Niagara and beat me to it, but I will ask a question of the Premier about his commitment and closing hospitals.

Premier, no Conservative candidate I'm aware of talked about closing hospitals during the last provincial election campaign, and you said during the leaders' debate, in answer to a very direct question, the following: "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it's not my plan to close hospitals."

Premier, if you're to live up to this publicly made commitment on the television stations and radio across this province, a commitment to the people of Ontario, will you assure the people of St Catharines that the Hotel Dieu Hospital in our city will not be closed?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As I recall in the debate, I think the NDP had a commission out to close hospitals, the leader of the Liberal Party said she would not rule out closing hospitals and I said I didn't have a plan at that time to close hospitals. I think all three were quite honest and quite up front at that particular point in time.

What I can assure you is that I still have no plan. However, I can tell you that as a result of the previous government's restructuring efforts, work that was done by the district health councils, people from within the region of Niagara themselves believe that restructuring is necessary, and they are asking the government for support in that.

Mr Bradley: We're not allowed to say that anybody's misleading the House or misleading the people of Ontario, so I won't say that. I only say that the Premier said --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for St Catharines --

Mr Bradley: I said I won't say that.

The Speaker: No, it doesn't matter. You can't infer something that you can't directly make the comment on. I ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Bradley: I don't think I should, but I will. I will withdraw that comment.

You said, "Well, certainly I can guarantee you that it's not my plan to close hospitals." You can twist that around any way you want. That's very straightforward. Anybody hearing you on television would have assumed that you were not going to be responsible for the closing of hospitals in Ontario.

Your government has slashed $38 million from hospital operating budgets in the Niagara region, and your government has then sent a blunt message to local hospital restructuring commissions and district health councils that if they don't swing the scalpel, the provincial government, your hospital closing commission, will swing the meat-axe.

Premier, haven't you really intimidated local authorities into recommending the closing of hospitals while you wash your hands of the whole affair?

Hon Mr Harris: No, not at all. I believe the member is referring to the fact that tomorrow the Niagara Regional District Health Council itself is releasing its own restructuring report, a locally developed proposal being available for discussion.

Mr Bradley: No, it's not; it was today.

Hon Mr Harris: Today, perhaps, then. You will be, no doubt, wanting to comment on it. The government will want to comment on it. The Ministry of Health will want to comment on it. Local people will want to comment on it. What I can tell you is that I think all three parties have acknowledged that restructuring is going to be required. Your own leader has indicated there's enough money in the health care system. "I don't think we are spending it as effectively as we can," he said. I agree. For 10 years, it was not spent as effectively as it could have been.

I can assure you that we plan to spend it more effectively, provide better services and work with local communities on how we can do that.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. The people of Ontario today, December 12, are still waiting to hear from you and your ministry what went wrong on the night of February 29-March 1 at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

On September 11, 1996, on your way into cabinet, you said, "The internal investigation with respect to Elgin-Middlesex and Bluewater really hinges upon completion of the police investigation, and the ministry has no role to play here." You went on to say, "Our investigators cannot speak to potential witnesses until the police have completed their investigation, so that's what's delaying us with respect to the internal investigation."

Minister, would you tell us in this House why it would have been inappropriate for ministry investigators to be conducting their investigation while the police investigation was proceeding?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): In fact they were, and they've been conducting a parallel investigation, but they did develop a protocol with the London police with respect to these matters, so that when they were advised by the London police that they had completed their particular investigation, or their need to meet and deal with potential witnesses and others with respect to the investigation, then they would indicate to the internal team that they had no problem with respect to them pursuing that particular matter. That's the way this whole matter has proceeded.

Mrs Boyd: This is very peculiar because this minister has claimed again and again that he could not give us any information about his internal investigation pending the police investigation being completed. It is now, of course. We know that 31 charges have been laid against eight people.

I guess the question here is: The minister has said again and again it would be inappropriate. Now he tells us that it's true.

He knows that's because we have the memo from his investigator, Ken Christopherson, to all employees at Elgin-Middlesex, telling them they should come forward if they had information, telling them he was working with the London police, advising them to call at the same number as the London police department, and knowing, as I'm sure he does, that under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act those employees are required to talk to internal investigators, and that the internal investigator was passing on personnel files for employees of the ministry to the police in an inappropriate way.

Minister, what we really see here is a very, very strange circumstance where you've avoided --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member.

Hon Mr Runciman: This is a serious matter and I've indicated to the members of the House on previous occasions that I wish to see this resolved as quickly as possible. Certainly every indication from the lead investigator, Mr Christopherson, is that once the police investigation is completed, he felt quite sincerely that they could, in a timely fashion, complete the internal investigation in terms of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and all the other requirements that may fall into place here, but certainly make the results of his investigation as public as we possibly can.

Certainly I've had no indication from Mr Christopherson, following the police investigation, that there will be any substantive delay. I'm very optimistic that in the not-very-distant future we will have that internal investigation completed and the results made public as much as possible.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. In a recent discussion paper put out jointly by the federal government, officials representing all territories and provinces in Canada have found that 50% of medication prescribed for seniors has been inappropriately used. This has serious cost implications to the government in terms of drug expenditures, but more tragic, it has serious health implications. A good many of them who are put into hospital have complications. Better than 40% of those people who are put into hospital are mixed up on medication. What is the government doing to address these concerns of seniors?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): This is a major challenge for health care. As the member has alluded to, the Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers did a study on this last year and found out that the inappropriate use of medication is costing about $5 billion to Canadian taxpayers. This isn't just in waste, it's also in overutilization and unnecessary use of our hospitals.

Right here in Metro Toronto, the pharmacists undertook a project earlier this year and asked, "For a two-week period, bring in the excess drugs that you're not using." They collected 8,500 pounds -- that's over four tons -- of drugs. This is an immense cost to Ontario's drug benefit plan which is costing taxpayers $1.2 billion.

This government has acted with intensive information packages, but also it has reduced the maximum possible supply per prescription from 250 days down to 100 days, and it has been supporting the Ontario Health Network, a province-wide computer system that helps pharmacists to provide information to seniors on how best to use their medications.

Mr Rollins: In visiting with many of the seniors in the Quinte riding, they are concerned about the waste of medication. They also want to make sure that expanded drug programs are in place. What is the government doing to see that these savings from reduction of waste are reinvested into the plan?

Hon Mr Jackson: We think this is good news because getting at this waste we've been able to save money and reinvest it by adding 275 new drugs to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. We've been adding to the list when the previous two governments took drugs off the list that seniors were paying for.

In June our health minister, the member for Simcoe West, took leadership at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings and is committed to developing a national strategy to increase the proper utilization of drugs by our seniors. Education is the key, and there'll be more coming for information for seniors and caregivers. Already this year the Ministry of Health has published prescribing guidelines to assist physicians in the treatment of heart failure and that is to complement the Minister of Health's initiative for 16 million more new dollars committed to expanded cardiac care.

In every way, this government is reinvesting in health care and we are finding better ways to deliver more service at less cost --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. On October 28 I raised in the Legislature the case of 93-year-old Mrs Catherine Duffy, who had been sent a $9,000 bill by Joe Brant hospital in Burlington. Mrs Duffy was forced to be in the hospital as a result of the lack of home care beds in the region. As a result of that, the board of governors --

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister responsible for seniors, that must be withdrawn.

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: The board of governors reviewed the case and now has suggested that there is a $9,000 bill outstanding and that a collection agency will now have to go after Mrs Duffy to collect the money. Minister, do you believe it's appropriate for a hospital in this province to send a collection agency after a 93-year-old woman to collect a $9,000 bill?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): On the basis of the description that the member opposite has given to me, I can understand there would be a great deal of sympathy for this individual. But I quite often find that when I've had an opportunity to look into these matters, the story is somewhat different from the one I'm presented with in the first instance. So again I would say that, with the assistance of my colleague from Burlington, who I know is well-versed on this matter, I'll be happy to look into the circumstances of this particular situation.

Mr Agostino: I spoke to Mrs Duffy's daughter today. Ms Morris said to us very clearly that she went to the hospital, she appealed the decision, that the hospital made it very clear to her they're not going to waive the $9,000 bill. The reason this woman had to be placed there was because there was not a bed available in Halton region and she felt she had to be near there, she had to be in a situation where she could look after her mother. Most of us in that situation would react the same way. As a result of that, she is facing a bill.

It is very clearly, and the hospital administrators told us, a result of the cutbacks and the shortage in hospital beds. That is the reason why this had to occur and why this bill was sent.

Minister, would you give us a commitment today that you will personally look into the case and that you will talk to the hospital administrators about waiving this $9,000 bill and reassure this 93-year-old woman that a collection agency will not be going after her for the bill?

Hon David Johnson: I'd be happy to give a commitment that I would look into this particular matter. If the member opposite will pass the details, again with my colleague from Burlington, I'm sure we'd be happy to get the details and respond to this.

I will say that of course the decision to levy the charge comes from the hospital, not from this government. This government has put health care as its number one priority of all services through the last election and through the term of this government. We have increased health care spending by $300 million in the province and we're looking to make health care better, including the health care through the hospital systems in the Hamilton area. But I'd be happy to look into the circumstances.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): They would rather have access to health care than a tax cut.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole, come to order, please.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: Earlier the Minister of Municipal Affairs attributed a direct quote to me that indeed is not a quote from me at all. It's a characterization by a reporter, and I was only commenting about Hamilton-Wentworth. I want to correct the record --

The Speaker: The fact is, you can't correct someone else's record. You can only correct your own record.

Mr Christopherson: Well, it is my name he used and he is wrong.

The Speaker: Then it's up to you to stand in your place at some point in time and say that specifically.

Mr Christopherson: I just did.

The Speaker: I know. That's why points of privilege are so interesting.

PETITIONS

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition entitled Stop the Cuts to Ontario's Poor: Express Your Conscientious Objection to Tax Cuts.

"The government of Ontario is planning to implement tax cuts that will benefit well-off people while at the same time they have cut incomes to the poor. Forty-six percent of Ontario families make less than $35,000 a year but will get only 7.3% of the benefits of the proposed tax cuts, or about $462 a year. Families with total incomes over $90,000 a year make up only 9.2% of all Ontario families, but they will get 32.7% of the benefits. In these tough times it is unconscionable that the poor go hungry and the wealthy are given more.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment are dealt with effectively and until the provincial deficit is paid down."

I affix my signature to the petition.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from CEP on behalf of the tens of thousands of workers they represent.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government will introduce legislation to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and distribute a discussion paper about changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas the expected changes include erosion of the right to refuse unsafe work; that workers will be forced to apply to their employer for WCB benefits; that employers will decide if the claim is valid; that reduction in power of the joint health and safety committees will be enacted; and elimination of compensation for certain injuries and diseases; and

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Act is a vital protection for all workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act has prevented untold numbers of accidents and saved thousands from illness and diseases;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, demand full public hearings throughout the province of Ontario on the Workers' Compensation Act proposed changes, and that no changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workers' right to refuse and joint health and safety committees be made."

I add my signature to theirs.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have a petition here signed by 4,000 people in my riding and from Flamborough out of a population of 28,000. It states as follows:

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

"We object to the recently proposed supercity model for restructuring local government within Hamilton-Wentworth.

"Specifically, we oppose any model which would dissolve the town of Flamborough.

"We insist that any model for local government reform guarantee full citizen input and support prior to its implementation in accordance with the principles of the Common Sense Revolution."

I support this petition and have affixed my name to it.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the closing down of regional offices of the family support plan has left cases inaccessible and unattended for both payors and recipients;

"Whereas the recipients represent real women and real children now facing eviction, food banks, loss of heat and phone services directly due to the closing of the regional offices and the unattended boxes of files;

"Whereas the support funds are not the property of Charles Harnick and his ministry and the holding of these payments violates the rights of children to basic needs of food, clothing and shelter;

"Whereas the present Tory government is not responding to but adding to the increased poverty in Ontario in the area of family support, contravening the UN designating 1996 as the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty;

"We, the undersigned, recommend to the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"To stop the forced passing of Bill 82 with the exception of the enforcement strategy and hold open forum with the people;

"To immediately expedite the disbursement of the FSP cheques to women and children who have been directly affected by the closing of the regional offices at least;

"To set up emergency FSP offices to handle the economic hardships of women and children by hiring back at least a skeletal crew of FSP trained staff to alleviate the numbers of the mishandled cases;

"To send out ministerial statements to the offices of hydro, telephone and banking institutions explaining the transition of the FSP office and supply emergency cash to those recipients via the ministries of Community and Social Services, women's issues or the ministry of Charles Harnick."

It's signed by a large number of my constituents, mostly from the Elliot Lake area.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition because a lot of people all over Ontario are very concerned about this so-called Tenant Protection Act. This one comes from Essex, Ontario. It's a petition to the Ontario Legislature, to Premier Mike Harris, Minister Al Leach and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario is planning to destroy the present system of rent control;

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservative Party made no mention of scrapping rent control during the election campaign of 1995 or in the Common Sense Revolution document;

"Whereas a number of Conservative candidates in ridings with high tenant populations campaigned during the 1995 election on a platform of protecting the current rent control system;

"Whereas the government has consulted with special interest groups representing landlords and developers while cutting funding to organizations representing the 3.5 million tenants of Ontario;

"Whereas although all renters will suffer, seniors and others on fixed incomes will suffer particular hardship if rent controls are abolished; and

"Whereas eliminating rent control will result in skyrocketing rents in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to stop the attack on the 3.5 million tenants of this province."

I support this petition.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we believe that provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

"Grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services;

"Coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access;

"Policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries;

"Provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario North service;

"Legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

This is signed by over 200 constituents in the riding of Hastings-Peterborough, and I affix my signature.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, protest the Ministry of Health's decision to allow for the removal from the Nursing Home Act the requirement for a minimum of one registered nurse on duty 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

"Literature supports, as does the ministry's resident classification, that the care requirements of residents in long-term-care facilities are steadily increasing and are increasingly more complex.

"Residents have multiple health problems requiring the knowledge and skill of the registered nurse to assess and intervene appropriately.

"We believe that the residents have a basic right to registered nurse care and supervision."

This is respectfully submitted from hundreds of long-term-care residents, their families, their friends and their caregivers. I sign my name to this important petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the United Food and Commercial Workers, Canadian Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of America, Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Amalgamated Transit Union with regard to the government's continuing attack on workers' compensation.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational diseases; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT, including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"We therefore demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeal structure with worker representation and that the WCAT be left intact and, further, that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I add my name to theirs.

BEAR HUNTING

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I have a petition pertaining to ending certain hunting practices such as spring bear hunting, bear baiting and the use of hounds to hunt bear. It is signed by 429 concerned Ontarians, most from my riding of Guelph. It appears to be in a standard form and I'm submitting it on their behalf today.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of people in St Catharines that reads as follows.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has closed three out of five hospitals in Thunder Bay and two out of three hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas drastic funding cuts to hospitals across Ontario are intimidating hospital boards, district health councils and local hospital restructuring commissions into considering the closing of local hospitals; and

"Whereas hospitals in the Niagara region have provided an outstanding essential service to patients and have been important facilities for medical staff to treat the residents of the Niagara Peninsula and will be required for people in Niagara for years to come; and

"Whereas the population of Niagara is on average older than that in most areas of the province;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Health to restore adequate funding to hospitals in the Niagara region and guarantee that his government will not close any hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement, and I hand this petition to the page from the city of St Catharines, Lauren Kennedy of St Denis school.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from a number of people in my riding. I have received many of those same petitions before, which I read here. It reads:

"Whereas proposed cuts in transfer payments pose a threat to Canada's national health care system; and

"Whereas, despite Mike Harris's promise on May 3, 1995, of `no cuts to health care spending,' his November 29 economic statement contains `$1.3 billion or 18% cuts to hospital spending over the next three years, and a further $225-million cut from the health care budget'; and

"Whereas, despite Mike Harris's promise in the Common Sense Revolution that aid for seniors and the disabled would not be cut, his November 29 economic statement shows cuts to the Ontario drug benefits plan and threatens access to drugs based on ability to pay; and

"Whereas the late Supreme Court Justice Emmett Hall, the father of Canada's medicare system, stated: `The only thing more expensive than good health care is inadequate or no health care'; and

"Whereas Ontario residents enjoy a one-tier health care system for all, regardless of financial status, without copayments or user fees;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, call upon Premier Mike Harris and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain and protect the health care provisions presently provided to all Ontario residents."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the administration of Families Against Deadbeats, Renate Diorio, Heinz Paul and Danielle McIsaac, are in total support of Bill 82, presented by the Honourable Charles Harnick to the Legislative Assembly on October 2, 1996, outlining the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, to replace the Family Support Plan Act, 1992;

"Whereas the changes will relieve the taxpayers of Ontario and provide proper enforcement required to collect and administer child support payments and orders;

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

"We support and agree with all of the changes outlined in the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, set forth by the Honourable Charles Harnick as Bill 82, and urge the Legislature to pass this bill into law as soon as possible."

I support this petition and have signed it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Caplan: I'm forwarding this petition on behalf of the students and families of St Timothy school:

"Dear Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Education promised that cuts to education would not hurt the classroom;

"Whereas the cuts to education have resulted in many of our very young children being housed in inadequate, poorly ventilated portables;

"Whereas the children who are housed in portable classrooms that occupy crowded school yards are educationally at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current moratorium on capital expenditure makes it impossible for some school boards to provide safe, comfortable learning environments for our children, thus adversely affecting the quality of their education;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed that $250 million be spent on the building of a superjail while withholding funds for necessary school construction;

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

"Remove the freeze on capital expenditures to ensure that our children are educated in buildings appropriate to and conducive of learning, comfort and safety."

I add my name in support of this important petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DE LA COLLECTIVITÉ

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 102,

An Act to improve community safety by amending the Change of Name Act, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 102, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité en modifiant la

Loi sur le changement de nom, la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels et la

Loi sur les services policiers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of the House that this motion carry? It is carried.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): The Community Safety Act is a very important step towards making Ontarians feel more safe in their own communities. By amending the Police Services Act and the Correctional Services Act and the Change of Name Act, administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, this new act will allow justice officials to notify the public of the release of dangerous offenders into their community.

The act will also close some of the legal loopholes around the change of name process. For example, the amendments to the Change of Name Act will provide a process for police to update information to reflect an individual's legal name change on the Canadian police information system. By allowing the linking of individuals to their criminal record despite a change of their name, the Community Safety Act will result in improved law enforcement and investigation in areas such as restraining orders on spouse abusers and stalkers.

Finally, these amendments enhance victims' and community access to information at all stages of the justice process, fulfilling the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights brought in by this government. These amendments are also in keeping with the recommendations made by the Christopher Stephenson inquest and support the victim notification system of the ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind the minister that it's customary that it's a brief statement and not debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

Mr Tilson, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to establish the Family Responsibility Office, protect the interests of children and spouses through the strict enforcement of support orders while offering flexibility to responsible payors and make consequential amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Bureau des obligations familiales, visant à protéger les intérêts des enfants et des conjoints grâce à l'exécution rigoureuse des ordonnances alimentaires tout en offrant une certaine souplesse aux payeurs responsables, et apportant des modifications corrélatives à des lois.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I intend to make a few remarks with respect to Bill 82 on behalf of the government. After that, I believe it's been agreed with the two opposition parties that the remaining time would be split between them and that there would be no two-minute responses.

In presenting Bill 82 for third reading today I would like to express the appreciation of the Attorney General and myself to all the members of the standing committee on administration of justice for their comments with respect to this bill. I'd like to thank them for their support in allocating time during the current session to ensure a speedy passage of this bill. Your support, we believe, will help us to get more money flowing to women and children in this province. Although we may differ with respect to some aspects of the approach, I know we share a common concern in wanting to enhance justice for children and women.

I would also like to thank all the presenters who came to the committee hearings last week to share their views with respect to Bill 82. I appreciate the effort and time they took in preparation and making their presentations to the committee.

During the committee hearings a total of 51 amendments were made to Bill 82. The amendments will further strengthen the bill's effectiveness in meeting the needs of children and women, clarify its intent and address some concerns that emerged during our debate of Bill 82.

In my remarks this afternoon I will highlight some key amendments that have been made. The goal of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act is to provide a strong, firm foundation for a new support enforcement program in Ontario that will truly meet the needs of women and children by providing them with economic security and the funds they are legally entitled to receive.

The old family support plan, while well intentioned, is broken. It is not meeting the needs of children and women.

Our government's new legislation deals with the shortcomings and weaknesses of the old plan. It closes the loopholes that led to the situation where today defaulting payors owe Ontario's children and women nearly $1 billion in support payment arrears, where three out of four families are not getting the money they deserve and which they are legally entitled to receive, and where money is not flowing regularly in nearly half the family support plan cases.

Our new legislation puts three critical building blocks in place: (1) tougher enforcement measures; (2) automatic filing with voluntary opting out; and (3) private sector partnerships. They form the basis for a new, more effective support enforcement plan that will get the children and women of Ontario the money they rightfully deserve and that they are legally entitled to receive.

Bill 82 sends a clear message to defaulting payors: Not paying support obligations is no longer acceptable in Ontario. With the passage of Bill 82, Ontario will have some of the most stringent support enforcement measures in North America. These include 10 tough new tools.

The first is driver's licence suspension. Under

part V of the bill we are giving the new Family Responsibility Office the authority to suspend the drivers' licences of people who refuse to meet their family support responsibilities. Defaulting payors will receive 30 days' notice to pay their arrears or arrange a satisfactory payment plan. Otherwise we will suspend their licences.

The suspension will not depend on the five-year licence renewal scheme. We will not reissue a suspended licence until the defaulting payor pays off the debt or establishes a satisfactory repayment plan.

The Family Responsibility Office, pursuant to

section 47 of the bill, will have the right to report defaulting payors to credit bureaus. By reflecting negatively on their credit ratings, it will be harder for defaulting payors to take loans and buy luxury items while their support payments go unpaid.

We anticipate that both driver's licence suspension and credit bureau reporting will be very effective in enforcing support order payments by self-employed and intermittently employed payors.

Bill 82 gives the Family Responsibility Office the authority, under

section 43, to register support orders as security interest under the Personal Property Security Act.

This will provide notice to commercial lenders that an individual has a support debt. Subject to the priority rules in the Personal Property Security Act, any added borrowing by the support payor will be subject to the Family Responsibility Office's registration and priority. When an asset is sold, child support will have priority over subsequent registered and unregistered interests.

Amendments to the Creditors' Relief Act, which are in

section 66 of the bill, give priority to all support arrears over other judgement creditors. This means that when a sheriff takes steps to collect on the support payor's judgement debts, support arrears will be paid even if there are other judgement creditors.

The current legislative mandate for the family support plan contains loopholes that let defaulting payors avoid paying support by sheltering their assets and income with the help of third parties. Through third-party enforcement in

section 41 of the bill, the Family Responsibility Office will be in a position to ask the court to order production of financial statements from third parties, add third parties to a default hearing and make orders against people who help defaulting payors to shelter their assets and income to avoid support orders.

There are protections for innocent third parties. Third parties will be added to a default hearing or be required to file a financial statement only if the court is satisfied that it's appropriate to do so -- that is, where there is some evidence of the sheltering of assets or income. Any order for payment that is made against a third party will be limited to the actual amount of the sheltering of income or assets and only when there is a finding by the court that the assets were sheltered.

Further, financial information that third parties file will only be used for the court process, including enforcement of any order made, and will be sealed by the court in order to protect confidentiality.

Another loophole allowed payors to shelter funds in joint bank accounts with other parties. The old family support plan was not able to garnish these accounts. Under

section 45 of the new legislation, the Family Responsibility Office will have the authority to garnish up to 50% of the money in a joint bank account. Again, we have included provisions to protect innocent third parties.

Another tough new enforcement measure covered in

section 46 of the bill involves the seizure of lottery winnings over $1,000. A defaulting payor should not be able to benefit from a windfall while his or her support obligations go unpaid. If a defaulting payor wins more than $1,000 in a provincial lottery, the Ontario Lottery Corp will deduct any support payment arrears from the winnings. It will then pay the deducted amount to the director of the Family Responsibility Office.

Under

section 1 of Bill 82, we are expanding the definition of income to close another loophole. The old definition of income was too narrow. This loophole made it possible for some payors to avoid their support obligations. Income under the new act will include advances, severances and lump sum payments. This will improve the enforcement of support order payments by intermittently employed payors and payors who have non-standard payment arrangements with their employers.

Section 54 of the bill gives the Family Responsibility Office much better methods to trace and locate defaulting parents. Clause 54(1)(

b) permits the Family Responsibility Office to have access to provincial government records to search for information about a payor for the purposes of support enforcement. We have made amendments to focus record access on what's really important for the Family Responsibility Office -- finding the payor and their assets and income.

Bill 82 makes it clear how unacceptable our government finds the non-payment of support obligations. To further emphasize this, we will screen all provincial government appointments to exclude people who fail to pay their child support. While this does not require legislation, I believe it reflects our commitment to ensure that women and children in this province get the money that they rightfully deserve and that they are legally entitled to receive.

The second critical building block in Bill 82 is automatic filing with voluntary opting out. Responsible parties who are fully meeting their support order obligations do not need government supervision in their personal business. Where both parties agree,

section 16 allows them to opt out of the government-run plan. Let me restate that our government is very aware of the potential for a vulnerable spouse to be subjected to coercion or abuse or who, for a variety of reasons, may be in an unequal bargaining relationship.

To protect women in those situations, subsection 9(2) of the bill will give judges the authority to prohibit spouses from opting out of the family responsibility program where they find it appropriate to do so. It gives a judge the authority to stipulate that a support order can never be withdrawn from the program by the spouse.

Voluntary opting out of the program is not an irreversible decision. Recipients and payors who have opted out will be able to return to the family responsibility program at any time.

Some presenters to the standing committee raised concerns about the potential impact of

section

Section 7 gives the director of the Family Responsibility Office the authority to close cases. It codifies what have been the family support plan's existing policies and procedures for refusing to enforce a support order and the related support deduction order in cases where enforcement is unreasonable or impractical.

As was indicated by the Attorney General when he spoke to the committee last week, it was never his intent that

section 7 would provide a way to get rid of hard to enforce cases from the mandate of the Family Responsibility Office. To make this abundantly clear, he has made two amendments to

section 7. The first amendment deletes clause 7(1)(

d) of Bill 82. This removes long-standing arrears as a criterion for closing cases. The second amendment is to clause 7(1)(f). It removes the criterion that permitted a case to be closed because the payor could not be found.

These changes are to clarify that the government's initiative is designed to find payors no matter how old the arrears and wherever the payor goes. The director of the Family Responsibility Office will continue to have the discretion to close cases. Guidelines will be put in place setting out the specific circumstances where cases can be closed.

The director of the Family Responsibility Office will be accountable to the Attorney General for the manner in which he or she fulfils his or her statutory obligations and remains subject to review by the Ombudsman as to the manner in which the program operates.

Giving the new Family Responsibility Office the legislative mandate to close certain cases based on strict criteria will let it focus its resources and expertise on difficult cases, where the program's intervention can make a real difference. However, as I've stated previously, the decision to close a case will not be made easily or in haste. The Family Responsibility Office will only close a case after exhaustive efforts have been made to enforce a support order and the related support deduction order over a period of time.

Section 4 of Bill 82 contains the third building block for a new program. It gives the Family Responsibility Office the authority to enter into private sector partnerships. In the Common Sense Revolution we made a commitment to review all core businesses and enter into partnerships with the private sector where it can provide services more effectively and efficiently. This could include drawing on private sector expertise to collect support payment arrears.

The members of this House and presenters to the committee told us they were concerned that recipients might have to pay the cost of having a private sector company collect arrears. Again, it was never the intent that recipients should pay to get money that is rightfully and legally theirs. The Attorney General has therefore amended

section 4 to specify that the defaulting payor, not the recipient, pays any costs to collect arrears. If any payor wants to avoid this extra cost, the answer is simple: Pay your support and pay it on time.

By the end of January we will begin the implementation of our key enforcement tools, starting with the driver's licence suspension, reporting delinquent payors to credit bureaus and putting processes in place to screen all provincial government and judicial appointments. We will also begin a staged implementation of voluntary opting out. By the summer of 1997 all our tough new enforcement tools will be in place.

We are also continuing to move swiftly to complete the re-engineering and redesign of the plan's work processes. In January our new customer service call centre will be fully operational. This means our client service associates will be handling all of the incoming clients' needs by telephone. This will go a long way towards resolving the chronic access problems that plagued the old family support plan for many years. Under the old plan there were 50,000 calls a day, and only 6% got through. Already, about 50% of the calls are being answered.

Next month we will also complete testing with income sources of electronic commerce hardware and software with the goal of achieving faster and more accurate transferral of funds from payors to the program and ultimately to the recipients.

Throughout the transformation to the new program, our number one priority will be to continue to be processing payments and acting on hot tips. A hot tip is information received by the program that could help collect money the defaulting payor owes his family. It could include a defaulting payor's address, place of employment, bank accounts, property or other income sources. Again, our goal is to get money flowing to families, to get them the money they rightfully deserve and are legally entitled to receive.

We are transferring more money to more families more quickly than before. All cheques are processed within 24 to 36 hours of receipt. Under the old plan this could take up to one week. We are processing more than 5,000 transactions per day, a 25% increase.

Bill 82 fulfils the commitment that our government made in the Common Sense Revolution to crack down on defaulting payors and to enforce support order payments. Not paying support order obligations is no longer acceptable in the province of Ontario.

I am pleased to table Bill 82 for third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for St Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to share the time with the member for St Catharines?

Interjections.

Ms Castrilli: You wouldn't deny him that, would you?

The Acting Speaker: It is agreed.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you very much.

In a just and fair society, no child would ever go hungry. In a just and fair society in Canada, no woman would be forced to consider how she is to provide her children with the necessities of life, let alone presents so close to Christmas.

Yesterday the United Nations released a report which indicated that child poverty is reaching epidemic proportions in the world. Canada does not escape from that. In fact, more and more Canadian children are being forced to find work in order to be able to contribute to the family income simply to get through.

What this bill really is about is not the fancy title that it has been given, but it's a fact that it should be dealing with the real issue, which is child and female poverty. In a democratic society that believes in fairness and justice, that ought to be our first priority.

Let me say that this particular bill does address some important issues. Let me say that we are in agreement with the government that the family support services plan required an overhaul. Let me also say that there are some provisions in the bill which are worthy of support. We particularly applaud the expansion of the definition of "income source" to include such new categories as lump-sum disability, pensions, workers' compensation, commissions, bonuses, annuities, dividends and income tax refunds. That will allow a more accurate assessment of income in order to be able to determine the basis upon which payments should be made.

Let me also say that the bill acknowledges that there are parents who take their financial commitments seriously. It allows payors and recipients to agree to opt out of enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office and to enforce the support orders themselves. While we agree that it is absolutely essential to reduce the case work wherever possible, there's a real concern with this step because it creates the possibility that one partner may coerce another rather than deal with the government system. Women who depend on their spouses are in no position to bargain.

We caution the government again, as I did on a previous reading of this bill, that it must act to ensure, and it is indeed its responsibility to ensure, that women and children are not victimized once again by the system.

We would have preferred a plan where payors in good standing would have been removed only after having been in good standing for a defined period of time. We still believe this is the smart way to go. The decision should not be at the discretion of the parties. Instead, it should depend on the payor being in good standing for a required length of time, and that determination should be made by the plan administrators. Any default on the part of an opted-out payor would automatically trigger reinstatement into the plan by the plan administrators.

We endorse those new enforcement measures that were outlined by the minister in July. Stakeholders demanded action in this area from the previous government but didn't get very far. We support the suspension of the driver's licence of defaulters. We support the reporting of defaulters to credit rating bureaus. We support the garnishing of joint bank accounts up to 50% if one of the holders of the account is a defaulting payor.

We support the ordering of third parties who have a financial relationship with a defaulter to provide financial statements, and allowing orders to be made against such parties if they were involved in sheltering the payor's assets or income from enforcement of the support order.

We also support the registering of support orders as security interests under the Personal Property Security Act, allowing for the seizure of personal property upon default, and the intercepting of lottery winnings of $1,000 or more and requiring support arrears to be paid from them before the winnings are distributed to defaulters. We support as well giving support orders priority over judgement debts.

But all of this does not go very far to address the issue which I first mentioned, which is the poverty of children and women at this time. This bill doesn't take very seriously the enormous problems the family support payment plan has in fact encountered for a long time, particularly under the jurisdiction of this government. What we need first and foremost of course in order to deal with the issue of child and female poverty is a prospering economy, an economy with jobs, an economy where parents can pay and fulfil their financial obligations. The inability or refusal to pay we know has devastating impacts on children, and there should always be zero tolerance of that.

All the government's plans have in fact worked against that sector of society. The so-called promise of 725,000 jobs really hasn't materialized and it hasn't affected a very significant --

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Only one year.

Ms Castrilli: Well, divide it by four, sir. You still haven't met the promise. There are more people unemployed now than there were when you took office, and that is a statistic.

The government's promise of a tax break has absolutely no effect on people who have a limited income, and certainly makes no dent at all in the lives of people who are forced to fight every day just to survive. We need to pursue means of improving the system and strengthening the enforcement mechanism, yes -- this government has chosen to ignore the most simple and obvious improvements -- instead of ramrodding massive structural changes down the throats of Ontarians without adequate planning, without adequate preparation.

I will remind everyone here of the growing problems we've had since this government took power: computer deficiencies. That's the least of it. The fact is there will not be an effective computer system in place until next year sometime; as late as June 1997 is the latest projection.

We've seen bureaucratic delays of women who have not been able to access funds that were paid into the plan by their husbands. There's $1 billion sitting in the Royal Bank of Canada, and we have yet to determine where the interest from that money will go.

There's been a massive caseload which has been ignored as the government has shut down offices without having any kind of plan in mind as to what it would do in the interim and following the shutdown.

We have a system that quite frankly has been thrown into chaos. The problems we've documented in this House over and over again: boxed files which prevent access, cheque delays, files lost, parents and children suffering, tender for computer and information systems that have just been completed now and won't be fully operational for another six months.

Let's talk about some of the real problems with the plan. We can start with the Attorney General himself, who stated in this House on October 2, 1996: "With a caseload of approximately 148,000 cases and an average of 1,400 new cases every month, the family support plan is ill equipped to handle its caseload. The plan receives up to 50,000 calls a day to its offices. Of these calls, only 6% of the callers actually get through." Now, of course, more get through, but they get through to a machine that tells them to call back. "Almost 8,000 letters arrive daily, most of which are complaints from clients about the lack of telephone service."

One would think, in the light of the Attorney General's own assessment of the situation, that surely if you were going to enter into a new arrangement, into a new system, into a more equitable system, you would've had a plan in mind before you started to close offices. Surely one would have thought that you might have listened to the very people who work in that area, the very people who went so far as to provide some suggestions as to what you might do.

We have, for instance, no less than the Ottawa family support plan indicating the very real serious problems in their area, who ask, for instance, how, when the only access will be via a toll-free telephone number, can the present system work better than the eight regional systems that we now have?

There have been suggestions sent to the Ministry of the Attorney General from a number of caregivers in that particular area and workers in that area which in fact even set out some