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

October 7, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

HEALTH CARDS

FOREST INDUSTRY

VINELAND THANKSGIVING ARTFEST

REGULATION OF TRADESPEOPLE

RACCOON RABIES

LONDON 200 CONFERENCE

WATER QUALITY

JAMES WARDLAW

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ASSISTED HOUSING

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

YOUNG DRIVERS

POLICE SERVICES

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

COURT FACILITY

VISITORS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CASINO GAMBLING

LONG-TERM CARE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (BLOOD-ALCOHOL), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PRÉSENCE D'ALCOOL DANS LE SANG)

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

Mrs Mathyssen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations / Projet de loi 92, Loi concernant les sociétés de protection des terres.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mrs Mathyssen has moved a private member's resolution, and pursuant to standing order 96(

c) the honourable member has 10 minutes to make her presentation. Following the completion of Mrs Mathyssen's presentation, every recognized party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): The planning, consultation and preparation of the bill standing in my name, the Land Conservancy Corporations Act, 1993, is one of which I am very proud. I would like to thank Ian McKay of West Nissouri township and Greg Johnston of London for the idea for this legislation.

In the late fall of 1990, Mr McKay and Mr Johnston came to my office to discuss the possibility of a private member's bill providing for land conservancies. Since that time, they have been most encouraging and supportive. Mr Johnston has given generously of his time and provided much valuable information.

I would also like to thank legislative counsel and my legislative assistant, Nancy Armstrong. Without their long hours of work, diligence to the task and valued advice, I would not have been able to bring this most important bill before the House.

I'd like to begin at the beginning, with the reasons for the need for the Land Conservancy Corporations Act.

Many years ago, the American humorist Will Rogers responded to a question about investment with the advice: "Invest in land, because they aren't making it any more." I believe Mr Rogers was talking about monetary investment for financial gain, but his remarks regarding the finite nature of land were directly to the point. Our precious wildlife habitats, natural areas, wetland, woodlands and farm lands are limited. Often, because of the pressure of urban growth and poor planning practices, they are in danger.

For several decades, land use issues have been a significant part of the environmental concerns voiced in every part of North America. Whether it be an old-growth forest in British Columbia, a wildlife habitat in the state of Washington, a wetland preserve in Ontario or the agricultural land that sustains us all, there have been pressures for development and economic activity that threaten the continued existence of these essential areas.

From the moment that the Europeans began to settle on this continent, the land was seen as something to be conquered, parcelled out, sold and exploited. In my own riding, the richness of the agricultural land has been its strength and its downfall. Because the soil is fertile, it was farmed quite successfully and produced an abundance of food. This abundance contributed to the establishment and growth of a large urban centre. The continued growth of that urban centre and smaller towns and villages across the riding has resulted in urban sprawl.

Development after development have claimed the very agricultural land that is needed to ensure the food security upon which every urban centre depends. The dilemma is a very real one for the people of Middlesex, and it exists in every part of southern Ontario.

Protecting agricultural land from competing and incompatible land use has been the focus of much concern. In 1978, Ontario released the Food Land Guidelines; in 1986, discussions were held to review the food land preservation policy statement. At that time, a number of serious difficulties were found to exist, and they still exist; namely, the agricultural community faces a constant and often heroic battle to make a living in the face of low commodity prices and high input costs.

In the urban shadow, the competition for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional land is enormous. Of course, Mr Speaker, as you well know, Ontario's best agricultural lands are primarily located in the areas of heaviest population. This is a dilemma we can only resolve through wiser land use and preservation.

In response to this issue of land use and protection of land, a number of land conversancy groups, or land trusts, if you will, have organized over the past several years with the object of placing significant lands under the protection of these voluntary citizens groups. It is my intention to provide, through this act, the instruments whereby charitable land conservancy groups can, once they are designated by the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation as land conservancy corporations, receive and enforce a registered easement or covenant against real property in perpetuity.

I believe it will be a significant and positive step forward for the environmental community in Ontario in its efforts to preserve fragile natural places and precious agricultural lands in this province.

Currently, only the Ontario Heritage Foundation and municipalities can enter into legal agreements with private land owners to preserve property. But the reality is that governments simply cannot do it all. Provincial and municipal resources are limited. Unfortunately, at the present time any community group wishing to conserve land resources is compelled to purchase the land in question.

An example of such a conservancy group comes from my own riding. Several trusts have joined to protect a parcel called Jeremiah's field. However, because of the prohibitive cost of assembling parcels of land, such an investment is well beyond the financial resources of most conservancy groups.

I'd like to briefly go through my bill to explain its parts and illustrate how this conservancy will work.

Section 1 of the bill provides the necessary

definitions for the purposes of this act.

Section 2 establishes the process whereby a corporation may apply in writing to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to incorporate as a land conservancy corporation without share capital under

part III of the Corporations Act or

part II of the Canada Corporations Act. As a charitable corporation, the conservancy may preserve, protect, conserve, maintain, restore and improve all or any part of the significant lands under its care. "Significant lands" include natural, scenic, agricultural land, and lands valued for silviculture, woodlands, wetlands, wildlife habitats or other types of lands as designated by regulation under this act by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The land conservancy corporation would then be able to receive easements and covenants from land owners. Easements and covenants pertain, as you know, to rights to do or not to do certain things on a piece of land. They can be positive and entail stewardship functions, or negative and carry restrictions on development rights. Easements and covenants are flexible arrangements designed to accommodate the unique needs of the various lands involved. Easements are written with a full analysis of the land in question and consist of stewardship plans involving a detailed application of the easement or covenant which is regularly reviewed by the land conservancy corporation.

All or part of the land is held in trust for the benefit of the community, the greater public good, and future generations. The land owner continues to own the land and will be entitled to pass it to heirs or sell it. However, the protection of the unique features of the property or its use as farm land remains unchanged in perpetuity. The conservancy has the obligation to enforce this protection, and the registration on the title of the property obligates the present and future owners to uphold the preservation, maintenance and improvement requirements of the easements and covenants.

Section 6 of the bill provides for the possible revocation of land conservancy designations. If, for whatever reason, this should occur, the minister would receive the easements and covenants on behalf of the crown and could convey them to another land conservancy corporation. This will prevent any attempt to use conservation easements in any improper or unintended way. Each land conservancy is required to keep public records of its dealings and to make these records available for inspection by the minister or minister's agent.

Section 12 of Bill 92 sets out the regulations to be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in regard to significant lands, prescribing applications, reports, fees and forms, and the establishment and maintenance of a register of land conservancy corporations.

Finally, it is necessary to amend six Ontario statutes to facilitate this bill. Consequential amendments are required in the case of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the Land Titles Act, the Municipal Tax Sales Act, and the Registry Act. Changes to the Land Transfer Tax Act will exempt the property conveyed to the conservancy from land transfer tax, and amendments to the Planning Act will exempt the land from the subdivisions control and part-lot provisions of the Planning Act.

In closing, I would like to impress upon all honourable members of this House the importance of this legislation. Land conservancies face significant statutory barriers in Ontario. Because they are not recognized by law, they are unable to do the vital work of preservation. This then could be our gift to future generations, if we here today can find the will to provide land conservancies with the ability to incorporate as private, non-profit corporations with charitable objects so they can enter into legal agreements with land owners to protect our heritage lands.

We can provide a vehicle that will encourage community partnerships, foster long-term planning and enhance social and economic security.

At the outset, I said I would begin my remarks at the beginning. With the support of the members of this Legislative Assembly, the beginning for the kind of land stewardship that will have unquestioned meaning and value for future children is here and now in our hands.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Middlesex and remind her that she will have two minutes in response once all parties in the Legislature have had the opportunity to participate. The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to be able to participate in the debate today also, and I would like to commend the member for Middlesex for bringing forward this bill, Bill 92. I think it permits another tool to be used in land management in the province of Ontario to aid in protecting areas that need to be protected, and that is an important goal.

However, I will say at the outset that we support this bill, but we support it with the proviso that it go to committee and we have the ability to hear public deputations concerning this bill, because much of this bill, as the member who presented it would know, is reasonably complicated and also has a large regulatory component, but we don't see the regulations. We, on this side of the House, would like to see a more comprehensive package and the ability for other people to comment, because some of the side-effects might well not be known.

We look at what it might do to tax bases. If this bill does what this government has a history of doing, that is, downloading costs to the municipalities, which could occur here if the land in question actually has its assessment value diminished, the municipal taxpayer will at least to some degree pay for the cost of having this conservancy. Maybe that's legitimate. I just want to hear about that, and I'm sure that many people across the province would also like to do that.

Preserving out wetlands, our woodlands and other important features, our agricultural land, is important to all Ontarians, and I repeat that we think the member has done a great service in bringing this forward. I have some concerns that it is subject to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation rather than to the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Environment and Energy, and perhaps when the member replies she can indicate to us why that choice was made.

I would, however, wonder if the member has spoken to the various ministers of this government, to the people in the executive council, because the attack on wetlands, on conservation lands and preservation lands by this government over the last few years has been incredible.

I would like to bring to her attention the situation, for example, in the conservation authorities. Ontarians would know that because of the cancellation of the conservation land tax rebate program, conservation authorities are being forced to sell important land, some of which was donated by conservancy groups, in order to pay their municipal taxes. That program was introduced in 1986 by the former Liberal government which provided to conservation authorities and other Ontarians interested in preserving land in the use it is in today. It seems to me that a government like that would have no

part in cancelling this rebate program, but that is exactly what this government is doing: It is attacking the local taxpayer; it is attacking the conservation lands. In my view, it is unconscionable.

The member talks about woodlands. This government has also cancelled the managed forest tax rebate. I don't know if people understand what kind of problem that has caused to the woodlands of the province of Ontario. Unlike agriculture, woodlands are being treated totally differently. It is no longer an incentive program of the province of Ontario to deal with the proper management of woodlots. No longer do you get some share of your property tax rebated by the province of Ontario for preserving your woodlot, for managing it in a proper way.

When you take those two tax rebates that have been taken away by this government over a very brief period, we find it a little incomprehensible that the member is putting forward a bill that will help a little bit, but the damage that has been created by the government which she supports on a daily basis has been huge in these very same areas.

The member may not appreciate that, and I will go back to the point and say we do like this as one of the tools, but people should understand that what's happening here is that a charitable organization or non-for-profit organization is buying an easement from people. We're not sure on this side that the purchase of an easement will occur in a large number of cases. We think it's a valuable tool, but we're not sure how widespread that tool and application will be.

I have chatted with a number of the groups interested in land conservancy and they support the principle of this bill, and as Liberals we believe this should be a good bill over time to provide some protection for the lands of Ontario, but again I have to reiterate my own problem. My problem is that the government as a whole is doing exactly the opposite. I would urge the member and the people over there in the NDP government to have a chat with the Minister of Natural Resources and a chat with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ask them why public policy appears to be moving in two completely different directions simultaneously.

With those reservations, I will reiterate our support and hope that this bill is referred to committee for full public hearings so that we can understand all the ramifications and so that the members of the Legislature, as they will in committee, can fine-tune this bill to make sure that what comes out of it is what the member intends.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to provide some comments on Bill 92,

An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations. The member for Middlesex indicates that the purpose of her bill is to promote the conservation and protection of significant lands in Ontario by providing new rights and exemptions in favour of land conservancy corporations.

This bill amends the Land Transfer Tax Act, the Planning Act, the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the Land Titles Act, the Municipal Sales Tax Act and the Registry Act, quite a major accomplishment in one minor bill.

Bill 92 defines "land conservancy corporation" and "significant lands" and deals with the designation of a corporation as a land conservancy corporation and the relocation of the designation.

It authorizes the grant of easements to land conservancy corporations for the preservation, protection, conservation, maintenance, restoration or improvement of significant lands in Ontario even if the land conservancy corporations do not own land capable of being accommodated by the easements.

That is the essence of what this bill is all about. It authorizes owners of significant lands to enter into conveyance with land conservancy corporations for any of the above purposes, and this bill deals with the registration assignment duration, modification and discharge of the easements and conveyance.

It's rather ironic that this bill, which is supposed to be aimed at promoting the conservation and protection of significant lands in Ontario, comes from a member of a government that has gone out of its way to weaken the long-standing partnership between the provincial government and one of the key players in the natural resources preservation and environmental management, that is, the Ontario conservation authorities.

I trust you will agree that I am in a unique position to comment on this matter, having spent 16 years with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and serving two years as its chairman. I am well aware of the importance of conservation authorities and the key role they play in the conservation, preservation, protection, maintenance, restoration and improvement of some very significant lands in the province of Ontario.

Since their formation in 1946, our conservation authorities have witnessed at first hand many of the serious problems that exist as a result of the way the responsibilities for natural resources and the environmental management are currently structured.

Today those conservation authorities are swimming against the current as they struggle to work through the maze of resource management agencies in order to find a logical method to ensure that the resources of our watersheds can be effectively managed and enhanced. The conservation authorities of Ontario have warned that the fiscal constraint of recent years has left all resource management agencies struggling to fulfil their mandates and obligations in resource management and environmental protection.

Provincial funding announced earlier this year will make it impossible for resource management agencies to continue to provide even the current level of resource management. I would suggest that the fundamental problem that exists in resource management today is not financial constraint; it is the current body of legislation, agency structures and mandates that do not recognize the concept of ecosystem-based management.

I suspect the chaos created by the overlapping mandate of the ministries of Natural Resources, Environment and Energy, Agriculture and Food, and Municipal Affairs and municipalities is evident to everyone. In fact, the conservation authorities of Ontario are on record as saying this situation has evolved over time as the provincial government reacted to specific problems with specific solutions. This issue-by-issue approach results in a situation that, when viewed from an ecosystem perspective, borders on the ludicrous.

The member for Middlesex appears to overlook or ignore the role of the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the role it played in purchasing thousands of acres of land in the Minesing Swamp, elsewhere in Ontario. Who does she think pays the taxes on the land like that? It's the conservation authorities that do -- the very authorities that have to pay the taxes, the very ones the government wanted to cut off.

What about Ducks Unlimited, and the major landholdings it has; preservation of our watersheds? What about the anglers and conservation clubs such as the Orillia club, that has what we call the Langman reserve, where they have the wetlands preserved? What about the conservation club that has its Christmas tree program, growing trees on it? These clubs are volunteer clubs. It doesn't cost the government one red cent.

Perhaps the member might consider withdrawing her bill and convince her NDP colleagues to instead take a serious look at A Blueprint for Success: Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario. That document was released in May 1993. The conservation authorities of Ontario indicate that society can no longer afford to maintain the current institutional arrangements that promote inefficient resource management. That's the conservation authorities' program. That's the book called A Blueprint for Success. Resource management must be planned and implemented on a watershed basis.

I remember a government not long ago that wanted to amalgamate a lot of the conservation authorities. It was called the Ballinger report. They were going to have larger areas under one jurisdiction. I was pleased to see that that report was not followed through, because many of the conservation authorities I have dealt with wanted it left the same as it was. However, they're in a bind now because of the problem of funding.

The member for Middlesex knows that she can count on support for her bill from her colleagues, and it will pass because there are more members on the government benches than there are on this side. If that should occur, then I would urge her to send the bill to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings. It's the very least she could do to ensure that it receives the proper scrutiny of municipalities, individual members of the public, conservation authorities, land trust corporations, farmers and environmental groups. They would love to have some input into this legislation.

I often wondered if she'd talked to the Tree Growers Association of Northern Ontario with regard to what its input would be on a bill such as this.

What happened to the woodlot management rebate program that was put in place? Is it still effective? Is it part of this bill? Are you going to withdraw any portion of that rebate program? Forest management tax rebates, conservation tax rebates: Are you saying you no longer want to fund these types of programs that have been put in place years ago?

I hope you and the people involved in helping to prepare your bill, Mr McKay and Mr Johnston -- you indicated the input they had -- take a broad look and initiate having this bill sent to committee so that all these groups will have full input into this type of legislation.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): First, I would like to commend the member for Middlesex for bringing this issue forward. It is very timely. Land trusts in fact are a century-old idea, that land is a sacred trust. We, as a society, are called in a very fundamental way to be stewards of the land. We are now struggling to deal with forces and abuses from the past which have eroded our rural communities, degraded agricultural lands and forests, and even created such things as the wind tunnel at Bay Street and Wellesley.

Land can be exploited; we all know that. Land trusts remove land from the marketplace forces and put it aside for very valuable things such as farming, wildlife habitat, forestry, recreation and even urban housing. Land trusts protect specific pieces of land and also serve to educate the community, the broader public, about the importance of protection.

We in Niagara feel the pressures of change probably in a very significant way compared to the rest of the province. We are a major transportation corridor from the US border, of course, to bring goods into and out of Canada, through the tender fruit lands of Niagara. Individuals and groups are very much concerned about the land. They're concerned in three different ways, and I'd like to explain these to you: first, the degradation of natural resources present there; second, the destruction of the nature and character of communities; and third, the degradation of fragile agricultural lands.

First of all, let's talk about the Niagara Escarpment. It was recognized recently, in the last few years, by the United Nations as being of world significance. The Niagara Escarpment Commission was set up during the 1970s, I believe, in order to protect this natural resource. Over the decades, quarrying had taken place all through the Niagara Escarpment, that is, from the Niagara River up to Tobermory. What has also happened is landfilling into those quarrying spaces, and of course the pressures of targeted urban development along the escarpment.

Second, I'd like to talk about the unique character. For instance, in Niagara we have the very special town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. There are many other beautiful spots across the province which deserve preservation, and that heritage is so important to our economy by way of tourism, certainly, but also to our quality of life.

Third, and most important, are the unique agricultural lands of Niagara. We're talking about tender fruit; we're talking about vineyards. The pressures have been so great. I think of west St Catharines, the urban-rural boundary, and how the pressures during the 1970s forced the expansion of that into the vineyards. There is a group in west St Catharines and across the peninsula called PALS, the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society. They believe, and it's so obviously true, that once agricultural land is paved over, there is no way to get it back into agriculture.

One other example of a land trust that I want to bring to your attention is the Toronto Islands. I happened to be there on August 2, a wonderful summer day, when we were celebrating the end of 35 years of controversy and fight over the future of that community there. If you walked through that community, it was a wonderful experience. There were tiny houses, there were marvellous flower gardens and there were no cars. It is certainly a community worth preserving.

I also want to tell you that probably the most important example of land preservation and the oldest one in all of Ontario is the Niagara Parks Commission. I don't know whether any of you have read the book by Pierre Berton about the history of Niagara. He details what happened there. This is more than a century ago, all through the 1800s up to about 1870. This is what it was like:

"On the American side of the river, every viewpoint was fenced in by greedy entrepreneurs so that there was no place from which the great cataract could be seen without payment." He goes on to tell about what a husband, a wife and their two daughters paid for one day to see the natural sites. It goes on to list 14 different fees that were paid, adding up to $37. In today's costs that would be $530. I thought this was interesting; he says here that they were persuaded to spend this sum by "a plausible, fair-spoken knave who got 25% of every fee." That is what happens, and certainly it can continue to happen today.

I don't have a lot of time left, but I do want to say that the Niagara Parks Commission was set up in 1880 and was opened with much fanfare. The difference that made to Niagara, to its preservation for the last century and a half, is well documented in this book and certainly very obvious when you come to see the beauty of Niagara now.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for Middlesex.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I agree with the member for Niagara Falls that Bill 92 is all about land preservation. I fully agree also with the bill to conserve our lands. I think every member of this House is interested in protecting and conserving our wetlands, woodlands and, mostly, agricultural lands.

I find it a little odd this morning that the member for Middlesex would introduce such an important bill, because she was dearly involved in what I call the largest land grab of the province of Ontario when the government approved the expansion of London-Middlesex. Some 80,000 acres of agricultural lands were grabbed by this government to permit the city of London to expand its commercial and industrial capacities. This is what the city of London had been asking for for 10 or 15 years. I know she fought very hard, and I congratulate her for having done so. She wanted to protect the people and she wanted the land grab to be honest, open and reflect the needs of people in London.

Today, we are looking at a very important bill that should go to a committee so that we can hear all the interest groups that pushed the member for Middlesex to introduce such a bill. I believe in it, but at the same time I would like to hear more from these groups, for the simple reason that we have conservation authorities with a lot of powers, and these powers have been increased in the last five or six years to permit conservation authorities to do more work in protecting lands.

I want to remind you that at the same time we're talking about protecting and conserving land, there is a commission in the province of Ontario called the John Sewell commission that is looking at land uses -- very, very important -- and planning as well in the province. This is not the first time a commission has been appointed to look at planning in the province and also to find better ways of protecting our lands.

I'm just wondering if the member -- maybe she can respond to me in her two minutes -- has consulted the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on this very important bill. Are municipalities in favour of this kind of approach? Also, have you consulted with the John Sewell commission? As you know, the final report was tabled, and I think Mr Sewell brings to this House a lot of good thoughts, a lot of good points that should be addressed.

Again, I would like to see this bill go before a committee so that all parties involved, for or against, are listened to and have an opportunity to fully explain the bill. But I will say that I agree with the bill in principle and I will support it if it goes to a committee.

The member from Niagara talked about the NEC, the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I can recall that when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, I had a great deal to do with the NEC, which I respect even today. Since the 1970s, the NEC has tried to do a reasonably good job, I would say, but you can't satisfy everybody. By introducing another bill today that would complicate all our planning and land use issues, I think this bill deserves to be scrutinized a little more closely, and this is why I want to see it before a committee.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to rise in support of the member for Middlesex. The Land Conservancy Act holds considerable interest for the people in the land trust movement, who have been working on this issue for several years. Some of those people are constituents of mine who have been working out of the Centre for Land and Water Stewardship at the University of Guelph. Professor Stewart Hilts and Peter Mitchell have provided significant input into the discussion of the revision of the Heritage Act.

They've also brought together people from all levels of government and the community in workshops designed to bring attention to issues that are crucial in allowing these instruments of land conservancy to become operational.

This private member's bill seeks to support and bring attention to the urgency of addressing specific barriers that land conservancy groups are experiencing before they can even get on with their work.

The one thing that needs to be clarified at the outset is that this debate does not pit environmentalists against the developers. It is not about unfettered development versus absolute protection. It's about measuring development in qualitative terms that enhance the security and the wellbeing of entire communities; terms that seek to conserve, in its true sense, to keep from harm, especially for later use, those natural resources that communities are dependent upon for water, food, affordable housing and sustainable economic activities. The key is community control by individuals who are intimately acquainted with the land and committed to its preservation and maintenance.

It's not difficult to see where the impetus for this movement is coming from. Private land owners and community groups are coming together to address specific problems regarding the use of land in their communities: unmanageable real estate costs, degradation of fragile or agricultural lands, pollution and depletion of ground water reserves, loss of wildlife habitats, and destructive changes to the nature and character of a particular community.

There is an urgency felt by people in these communities to promote the benefits of land stewardship responsibilities and obligations in order to provide long-term security to future generations. It should also be stressed that among those who share these concerns are developers and real estate agents themselves, who also recognize the need for affordable land.

The land conservancy corporations are not being promoted as the panacea to the world's environmental crisis. They do not let governments and industry off the hook, but they do offer the possibility for ordinary citizens to participate actively in preserving the character of their communities.

Land trusts can do a number of things. They can provide public education about the value of protective activities. They can disseminate information through workshops and newsletters about protection techniques. They can inform private land owners of the biophysical significance of the site of which their property is part. They can provide directories of land owner services based on environmentally responsible operations; for example, woodlot management, tree planting, stream enhancement or erosion control.

I believe that this work deserves our support and that the land conservancy organizations should be given the authority they require in order to increase the protection of significant lands. They can act as recipients for donated properties and negotiate conservation easements and covenants.

As I said earlier, I'm very pleased to be able to stand here and support my colleague the member for Middlesex.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm glad to stand in my place this morning and speak briefly in support of the private member's bill as presented by my colleague the member for Middlesex. I think she should be commended. This has been suggested as one of the most important, gripping private members' bills that has come before this Legislature; it's that important.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Gripping?

Mr Mills: Gripping, yes. It really speaks to the matter. I want to talk now, since I have some knowledge of the movement in England, about what happened over there, not proposing or suggesting that I lived in the 1700s, though some of my colleagues may comment about that. It's interesting to note that in feudal times the common lands were regarded in England as the property of the lord of the manor, who claimed the right of enclosure.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Not the lady of the manor?

Mr Mills: No, the lord. They weren't enlightened. The lord was the great master over there.

The hands of the government of the day were not clean. These changes have been authorized --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Are you talking about your own government?

Mr Mills: No. I could talk about your government at length, but this is private members' time -- Mr Speaker, I'm talking through you -- and I try very hard to speak to the issues and not inject any partisan comments into this, although it's difficult for the member for whatever.

Anyway, these changes were authorized in England under numerous private acts of Parliament. They were usually initiated by the lords of the manor and these high-profile owners who seemed to have control. Enclosure commissioners were appointed to scrutinize the claim, redistribute land and grant compensation. All this had a tremendous impact across England during the 18th and 19th centuries. Now we have the National Trust which has come into being over there, and it's trying to reverse some of these inequities that happened over the last couple or three hundred years.

Private individuals and community groups in Canada and, more importantly, in the province of Ontario are coming together more to address problems regarding the use of land in their communities. We see this every day as members in our own ridings where people come to us about real estate costs, the degradation of fragile or agricultural lands and natural resources and the destructive changes to the nature and character of a community.

In my own riding of Durham East we have an ongoing battle now with a claim to turn a wetland into some sort of cement hole, which my people are very much opposed to. I would like to give credit to the Minister of Natural Resources who is demanding that this incident be thoroughly investigated.

We're running out of time; I've got only a few seconds left.

Mr Ramsay: Thank goodness.

Mr Mills: You say what? Thank goodness? I don't.

Thank you for this opportunity to talk. Again, I want to commend my colleague for what I consider this very important piece of private legislation and I urge all members to support it.

Mr Ramsay: I also will stand in my place today and very briefly give my support to this bill. It's nice to see, in private members' hour especially, that members are supporting institutions such as conservancy associations and groups.

I had a bit of experience with seeing a conservancy land preservation project when I was travelling with my family in Nova Scotia. One day we were driving west on the Digby Spit, which comes from the nice city of Digby where all the great scallops come from. To get right to the end of that spit, you also take little ferries to two islands at the end. The last island is Brier Island. It's a very popular place for people to go and see the whales coming up the east coast of the United States and in the spring coming into the Bay of Fundy. You're sort of halfway out by being on the spit.

A conservancy group in Nova Scotia purchased a lot of the land on Brier Island, so basically what's left are a few homes in a hamlet, where you can get bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Most of that island has been set aside for just that non-consumptive, recreational activity that more and more of us today are involved in.

It's a system that works very well. It harnesses private sector dollars towards conservation and environmental protection. That's a good idea, because as we know and certainly this government has discovered, governments can't do it all today. In fact, we will have to do less and less. Legislation such as this that is permissive, that allows groups to set aside land for non-consumptive recreational activity is a very good idea. It's healthy for the environment and it's very good for tourism.

I applaud the member for bringing forward this bill, and I think she will find that most members in the House will support it today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Middlesex has two minutes in response.

Mrs Mathyssen: I've got a lot of ground to cover, so I'll try to get right to it.

I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his support. I would like to assure you that there has indeed been extensive consultation. I myself consulted with ministries of the crown, Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Agriculture and Food, Environment and Energy, Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Municipal Affairs, and extensively with land trust, the legal community, Ronald Reid.

I know that Culture, Tourism and Recreation has consulted quite, quite extensively over the past few years in regard to heritage properties with business, the development industry, labour, municipalities, the ethnocultural community, Ontario naturalists; it's been a very wide, extensive consultation, and I'm very proud of that.

In reference to the costs to municipalities in terms of taxes, I would draw the member's attention to a document entitled The Economic Benefits of Open Space, by Stephen Miller, and point out that Mr Miller says:

"In studies of this kind conducted by American Farm Land Trust, every municipality received more from open space than it had to give back in services and in taxes. The magnitude of difference between the revenues and costs was substantial in all cases. Open space pays an average of three and a half times as much as it costs in terms of taxes."

There's a very important and significant argument for trusts.

I chose the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation because that minister administers the Ontario Heritage Act. I would like to point out that this government is the first to put in place the instruments of province-wide land use planning, and the purpose of the Sewell commission was to address the very long-time, questionable and inappropriate land use that's been at work in this province and to resolve those issues.

I'd like to point out to the member for Simcoe West that my bill is not a minor bill. It does address a number of Ontario statutes because it didn't exist before those statutes will be affected. I also point out to the member that the Minister of Natural Resources is currently working with the conservation authorities to help them do the important work they need. I've talked with my local authorities and the progress has been very good; they've had very good dialogue.

I thank the member for Ottawa West, who was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for remembering that I opposed the London-Middlesex Act. I would also like to remind him that the current Minister of Municipal Affairs just this June put in place a regulation that will compel the city of London to protect agricultural land and do extensive planning before it can proceed.

I thank the member for Timiskaming and my colleagues for their very kind support.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for ballot item number 25, the second reading of Bill 92 brought forth by Mrs Mathyssen. It will be further dealt with at 12 noon.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Morin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which time every recognized party in the Legislature will have 15 minutes in total, maximum, to debate the bill.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): We're discussing today the issue of health cards. Much has been said and written about this topic lately. It has been studied, analysed and debated by a number of health care specialists and professionals. What is increasingly clear, however, is that our health care system is not functioning in an effective, cost-efficient way, and this is well illustrated by the management of Ontario's health cards.

You may recall that a family-based registration system was set up in 1968. In 1986, the former Liberal cabinet approved the move to an individual-based system which was set in motion in 1990. Ontario was by then the last province in Canada to set up an individual-based system in which each eligible individual received a health insurance number for life.

This change was introduced as a first step towards the reform of our health care system. One of its main objectives was, of course, to ensure greater control over the fraudulent and unintentional abuse of health benefits by Ontario residents and non-residents. But most importantly, we believed that a well-organized and accurate registration system would be extremely efficient and would allow for the better use of public funds.

It would be highly unrealistic to expect such an extensive project to be implemented in a short time without any adjustments. Obviously, adjustments have been necessary. Nevertheless, there is no question that the move to an individual-based registration system was necessary and is a positive step in the organization and administration of our health care system. It is no doubt for these reasons and for many other ones that the issue of health cards attracts so much attention and raises so much interest.

Health costs account for about one third of government expenses. We cannot afford inadequate controls and procedures, poor registration practices and an inaccurate database. Taxpayers are correct in their expectations of sound policies and careful planning of limited resources.

Out of concern with the health costs associated with the use of OHIP cards, I introduced in June the private member's bill we are presently debating. Bill 44 proposes a new health card, complete with photo identification and an expiry date. This new card would also contain the cardholder's sex and date of birth, along with the present requirements of name, signature and health insurance number. There is no question that a new health card is necessary. The current card does not meet all of the needs of the health care system, does not provide for regular updates of information and is much too easy to reproduce.

My bill requires that citizens register every four years in order to receive a card. The requirement to provide a photograph will also make it more difficult to obtain a card fraudulently, as the individual will have to present himself or herself in person with supporting pieces of identification. Bill 44 also takes into consideration the situation of individuals who cannot provide, mainly for medical reasons, a photograph of themselves.

The registration process which would accompany the issuance of a new health card will allow the Ministry of Health to weed out the ineligible holders of cards, estimated to number in the thousands. The inability to determine the exact number of ineligible cardholders, coupled with the ministry's own admission that fraud costs the province anywhere between $20 million and $100 million, clearly demonstrates the need for a more accurate and better-monitored database.

The introduction of a new health card will help clear up this confusion while improving the delivery of health care. It simply makes more sense for the government to eliminate fraud and wasteful expenses instead of attacking medical services and essential programs. We must start by improving the accuracy of the database and ensuring that only those people entitled to health services receive them. This is a vital point. A proper registration process will determine the successful result of many Ministry of Health projects.

Efficient long-term planning is only possible with the proper tools and the correct information. This is why an expiry date is so important. It allows the regular update of essential information such as the change of address, which is said to be the cause of the highest inaccuracy of the database. This has been confirmed by many sources, including the Deputy Minister of Health, who says it's "a real problem." The administration of OHIP, as it currently stands, contains no renewal process to allow the updating of information. The ministry can only hope that people will advise it of changes of address.

In this regard, Bill 44 shares the responsibility of the proper management of the OHIP system with the citizens of Ontario. It is based upon the notion that our health care system is a collective responsibility and that, as such, we must all play a role in using it wisely and protecting it against improper use. If we choose to disregard our responsibility, we will all pay the cost in terms of low-quality health care and restricted access to health services.

Under Bill 44, the responsibility for registration and renewal of the card will rest ultimately upon each citizen. A person will never lose his or her entitlement to health services, yet failure to register may mean that a person will be left holding an expired card. No one will be refused health services in Ontario, but we must drive home the fact that access to health care is not to be taken for granted. We all go through the hassle of renewing our driver's licence, yet no one has ever seriously suggested that it isn't worth it. I believe that our health system is worth the same fraction of our time.

Some of my colleagues may be aware that the province of Quebec introduced last October a photo health card. The intention behind this initiative was to tighten control over who is or is not eligible to receive health services. What impressed me was the rapidity with which the issue was dealt: A problem was identified; there was a consensus among the population that something needed to be done; all political parties agreed; a decision was taken and implemented.

By early 1993, some 355,000 registration forms had been mailed out. After three months and two reminder notices, about 60,000 persons had still not responded. This means that 60,000 cards were not issued; 60,000 health cards were not in circulation that would have been otherwise and incurring expenses.

By August 1993, a total of 1.411 million registration forms were mailed out since the introduction of the photo card. Presently, 123,731 persons possess an expired card. These persons have not been issued a new card even though many of them may be entitled to it. In my view, these numbers are significant. The point is that by now 123,731 new cards are not in circulation. This represents important savings.

According to a poll conducted in Quebec in January 1993, 92% of the participants found the process easy. A properly completed form allows one to receive the new card in about 20 days. The feeling is that public funds are better spent. This is a good example of what can be accomplished when the political will exists.

The issue of privacy and confidentiality immediately raises its head. Are we moving towards some kind of new identification card much like the social insurance number has become? The answer is no. Ontario has passed legislation which prohibits the collection of an OHIP number for any purpose other than medical. A photo health card would not -- and I state this emphatically -- become a general ID card. A major concern of many in the field of health care is ensuring that while the efficiency of the system is improved, this does not occur at the expense of individual privacy. The protection of the confidentiality of personal information is and should continue to be an ongoing priority.

I know this bill can be improved and it should be. We don't want to rush anything, yet we also shouldn't wait any longer before tackling this complex and urgent problem.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will have two minutes later in the debate to respond. Further debate.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I appreciate the opportunity to rise for a few short minutes and to express some concerns with respect to Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

May I say at the beginning that I know the Liberal member who is proposing this bill means well in terms of trying to fix a very badly flawed system that was brought in in 1990 by the Liberal government at that time. The Liberal Party -- and we've seen this time and time again, whether it be taxes or other areas of credibility in government -- is bolder than brass, as my mother used to call us when we were little kids.

They get up and, by proposing a bill, they're trying to persuade the people out there in Ontario that their system wasn't so bad and that they're now going to be responsible and try and bring some credibility back to an issue. The people of Ontario know that the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the health card system.

They brought in a system in 1990 in a hurried fashion prior to the snap election called by Mr Peterson. They had no upfront verification. You simply sent in these blank forms. We have a quote from the Globe and Mail on June 4, 1990, that says, "A dog and cat have been officially registered as human beings in the province of Ontario and have received identification cards entitling them to health insurance benefits under a program designed to eliminate fraud in the health care system."

We have Elinor Caplan, the former Liberal Health minister, saying on June 4, 1990, "This re-registration, which is the largest in North America, was specifically designed to provide speedy assignment of new health numbers to all Ontario residents without causing concern about continued coverage." Good goal. She goes on to say, "We are bringing in the appropriate measures to ensure that fraud is minimized, that people have the numbers they need and that the new system will be in place."

We had last week the Minister of Health, now the NDP minister Ruth Grier, being very frank with this chamber and admitting in response to a question from myself that indeed there were no upfront verification measures or plans put in place when the Liberals brought in the red and white health card system.

It's no coincidence it's a red and white health card system. It's no coincidence that bureaucrats were told to rush out these cards in the six months prior to the calling of the snap election, because the Liberals did nothing about health care reform. Elinor Caplan got up in this House time and time again and simply said she was concerned every time one of our colleagues brought forward some very serious problems in the health care system as the health care crisis began to brew under the Liberal administration in this province. All the minister of that day and that government, and many of them are here today --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): He's obsessed with health cards.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- all they could simply say is they were concerned.

To convince the people, in a cynical way and a cynical plan, that they were doing something about health care reform, they rush out these cards, tell the bureaucrats, "You've got six months before we call this snap election," and the people of Ontario get these red and white health cards in their pocket as quickly as possible before the election is called, to give the impression that the Liberals were doing something about health care reform.

I give some credit to the NDP. They are doing something about health care reform. It's long overdue and they're doing a number of measures; some we agree with, some we don't agree with. The Liberals did nothing in their five years except put out this cynical plan to bring in cards.

My leader, Mr Mike Harris, in Hansard on June 5, 1990, was absolutely right when he said, referring to the Liberal Health minister, "Maybe she just wanted to spend $30 million and get a nice letter out from herself before an election and make a contact with everybody."

In fact, the rumours were rife at that time, and they continue to be rife, that because this red and white health card system did nothing to improve the system at OHIP -- and I'll discuss that in a moment -- with respect to health card numbers, absolutely nothing, the suggestion is that the Liberals simply wanted a campaign list, a list of the people of Ontario, a registration list so they could conduct the 1990 campaign in a cynical way.

I want to talk about one of the problems specifically with Bill 44. I have met, as has the Liberal critic, with officials from Montreal who are introducing photo health cards. We met with the parliamentary assistant to the minister on two occasions in the last three weeks. They indicate that they are able to bring in photo ID health cards in that province because they have a higher degree of confidence in their database.

The problem with bringing in photo ID right now -- and the NDP is grappling with this problem, and I understand that a decision will shortly be taken by the cabinet on this issue -- is that we have such a flawed database over there at OHIP. Because your dog and cat and parrot could register, what's to prevent somebody, for instance an American resident -- and through the committees we've identified several who have health cards who come here regularly to receive health care and don't pay taxes -- or somebody who has either a fraudulent card or a card that doesn't belong to them from lining up and now getting their picture put on it?

The database is so bad that if you've got a fraudulent card, you're simply going to line up and get your picture taken. That will make the fraudulent card even more legitimate in the eyes of the people in the health care community administering this. We know we have hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud in the health care system. The deputy minister tried last February to make up a figure of $20 million. We had him back in committee three weeks ago and he's now up to $24 million, possibly $100 million, $200 million.

The government's most recent published report says there's $256 million of health care fraud that we know of. Our estimates and the government's previous report -- I admit, in worst-case scenarios -- bring that figure up to $697 million, and close to $1 billion in the case of one report. That is the extent of the problem.

I don't think photo ID is the solution. When people have fishing cards, hunting cards and welfare cards and numbers and files -- the government has just spent $72.5 million on a new drug card system and computer system -- I think we have to start looking at, rather than this proliferation of seven or eight plastic cards that seniors and other individuals in this province are carrying around in their purses and wallets, coordinating all this plastic out there, all these numbers, all these databases which are rife. If you're a lawyer and have ever hired a private eye, you can get information out of all these current databases.

I say we need to look at a government-wide access card for services that the people of Ontario are entitled to receive and that are paid for by the government of Ontario. We need to look at that. Since 1986, Management Board has been looking at a government-wide smart card; we managed to get that out in committee.

My own health advisory group that advises the PC Party with respect to health matters has some very high former officials of health care on that group. They tell me it's a fight among fiefdoms, that Management Board can't seem to advance what appears to be good idea in terms of a government-wide card because Health has been a holdout and Community and Social Services has been a holdout. Different deputy ministers have argued over the years, under this government and the previous government, that they needed their own card system in their own ministries. Well, enough of that nonsense. There's enough money being wasted. All of these systems are open to fraud.

We've discussed with the private sector the technology that's available there, and my great fear is that if we move ahead with photo ID cards now, it will cost $50 million to $100 million. It's an interim measure. It cost $30 million to bring in the red and white health cards in the first place, a very flawed system, as all the people of Ontario are well aware. To move ahead with photo ID now with such a flawed database is not the way to go. It may be a $50-million to $100-million waste of money.

However, to end my

section of this debate, I say that I will support this legislation because at least it's a private member's bill and it does at least send a signal on behalf of the now-repentant Liberal Party that it is willing to cooperate to try and fix the fraud and abuse that's going on in the system now.

On that note, I will support this bill in principle.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I had not really intended to be here this morning to speak on this bill, so I will be somewhat more scattered in my discussion of the bill. I just want to deal with some of the items that I have some concern about, but I'd like to first of all compliment Gilles Morin, the member for Carleton East, for bringing this bill forward. I think he's done a great deal of work on the matter, and it does address a problem with respect to the perceptions concerning our health card system here in Ontario.

I'd like to deal with the whole question of alleged fraud being a major problem. The reality is that no one knows to what extent fraud is a major problem. There's no information really available or that can be determined to be available about the extent of the problem.

I myself am one of these persons who has a high degree of scepticism with respect to the level of fraud. I'm sure there is some in some of the border communities, but that's something we really have to determine: To what extent is fraud a problem? There's no question that there are other problems with respect to the use of health cards, and that is perhaps the overuse of medical services, the duplication of use. Maybe many of these areas that people consider fraud are really related to the whole question of what I'd call inappropriate use of health cards rather than fraudulent use of health cards. That's the first thing I'd like to say.

It's been said that the province of Quebec has a great database. I just met, along with the member for Simcoe West, with a delegation from the province of Quebec, with their health officials. They indicated they had no idea to what extent there was a fraud problem in the province of Quebec, so even in spite of their supposedly much better database, they have no concept of the extent to which fraud is a problem in their system, and the only way they will, hopefully, be able to get a better handle on that will be after the introduction of their photo ID card. That's the first item I'd like to deal with.

The second item I'd like to deal with is that I think we all agree that the original system that was brought in was very loose with respect to the whole question of registration. It was too easy to register; it was just an invitation for duplicate cards to be issued and for a creation of a major problem. But I think we've made a great stride with respect to correcting that problem.

The allegation was made initially that we have so many health cards floating out there that are fraudulent, but if you look at the facts, the fact is that the number of health cards actually issued today in Ontario is slightly less than the total population of Ontario. If you look at that aspect, how can you say there is a massive number of fraudulent cards out there? There are obviously some, but it certainly destroys the claim that there is a massive number of fraudulent cards floating around.

Third, with respect to the effectiveness of an approach trying to tighten up the system, we've already taken action to tighten up new registrations. I think the next step, which is dealt with in Bill 44 and which I commend the member for, is to tighten up the whole question of re-registration. I think this probably is the best way to clean up the problem: the whole re-registration process. Again, discussing the matter with health officials from the province of Quebec, their opinion was that the most effective way of dealing with the cards that were inappropriately issued was re-registration. That is certainly a very good item of the bill.

With respect to the photograph, I think that is where the concerns were raised with many members who sat on the public accounts committee and heard evidence about the photograph system. Certainly the photograph system makes it easier for the provider to catch obvious cases of fraud, very simple-minded fraudulent people, shall we say, but it certainly doesn't protect against the person who is dedicated to commit a fraud. I don't think any system will ever cover the situation of somebody who has the forethought to go out and try to defraud the system. You'll always have people who will find some way to get around the system, but we want to tighten it as much as possible.

The concern I have about the photograph is the fact that in the province of Quebec the cost of the photograph system is imposed upon the consumer. The cost is approximately $10 to $12 per photograph. When you look at that in terms of the impact on Ontario, with a population of over 10 million persons, that's a situation where over a period of time -- obviously, no government would ever bring in a program that would all happen in a short time frame -- a cost of perhaps $40 million would either being imposed on the treasury of Ontario or on the citizens of Ontario.

That is something I think we have to look at more carefully. We have to look at it on a cost-benefit basis to determine if that is the most appropriate way to deal with the question of trying to reduce the element of fraud. The signature aspect is probably a good idea. I don't see any problem with that.

I'd like to end by saying that I will be supporting the member for Carleton East's bill. I think it deserves support because it does attempt to deal with the problem. I think we all agree in principle that we want to have a more effective health registration system here in this province.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): The most compelling reasons for proceeding now with this bill are set out in the Provincial Auditor's report of 1992. According to the auditor, the ministry relied on inaccurate and incomplete OHIP information to verify eligibility, had not developed a formal process to ensure that registration information was updated for address changes and deaths, and had registered as many as almost a third of a million more people than were estimated by Statistics Canada to live in Ontario; that is a third of a million shadow, non-existent, deceased, visitors and other kinds of non-Ontarians.

A nearly 200-page leaked ministry report highlights some of the ensuing problems. Hospitals and health care providers have no way of determining the validity of an Ontario health card, creating a potential loss of almost one third of $1 billion in fraud, almost $50 million of loss in health care abuse and over $150 million of loss in claims that would more appropriately be attributed to the federal government. Over a quarter of the information in the OHIP database is wrong, and almost half a million cards are in circulation that shouldn't be, to a potential cost of almost $70 million per year.

This leaked ministry report recommends a system less vulnerable to fraud and abuse and a health care card with a photograph and expiry date and electronic scanning of these cards.

To be fair, the ministry has tried to respond to these problems and has agreed with the Ontario Medical Association to introduce a new health card to try to correct these difficulties. But all this is to be announced by the end of December, while taxpayers' dollars are eaten up in fraudulent and other kinds of inappropriate claims.

We need to proceed now. In fact, there are two main reasons to act now: the problem and the solution. The problem is multimillion-dollar losses to the Ministry of Health in fraud, which is continuing while the problem goes unchecked. The solution is an excellent piece of legislation brought forward by the member for Carleton East that would go a long way towards correcting these difficulties.

The bill brought forward by the member for Carleton East will establish a new health card which will include a photograph of the insured person, an expiry date, and of course the insured person's name, sex, date of birth and health insurance number. This bill will establish a much more rigorous identification process to establish the eligibility of patients for care under the plan. It will allow for the regular updating of important information. The photograph and expiry date will help care providers establish the validity of the card. It will be very difficult indeed for someone to use another person's card.

This bill will correct the problem of health card fraud, or at least go a long way towards doing so. No one will be permitted a card who is not legally entitled to be in Canada, making his or her home in Ontario, and living in the province for over six months a year.

This bill is timely, accurate and very appropriate. In the current economic climate, we can ill afford multimillion-dollar fraud and waste. The system that the member for Carleton East proposes will require minimum maintenance and will maintain an accurate database. We cannot wait any longer for health care fraud to be corrected in Ontario. The ministry has promised to announce something or other by the end of December. It is simply not soon enough.

The member for Carleton East is to be commended for seizing the initiative in this matter. I am fully in support and will be happy to vote in favour of his bill, and I urge my legislative colleagues to do the same.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this chance to provide some comments with regard to private member's Bill 44,

an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act.

With this bill, the member for Carleton East is attempting to apply greater restrictions on the issue and use of health card identification by:

-- issuing photographic health insurance identification cards that would expire four years after they were issued;

-- ensuring that only residents of Ontario are issued renewed or replaced cards by applying in person to the Health ministry's general manager and signing them immediately;

-- allowing parents to apply on behalf of their children under the age of 15 and authorized people to apply on behalf of persons with a disability, illness or infirmity or who have difficulty in expressing their wishes;

-- requiring people to notify the general manager if there is a change of information and requiring the return of the card if the person ceases to be a resident of Ontario or if the person is no longer determined to be insured;

-- requiring written notification by an executor, administrator or relative of the death of an insured person and requiring the return of the card;

-- imposing confidentiality on people in possession of information collected from those applying for, renewing or replacing a health insurance identification card;

-- creating offences for making a false signature on a card permitting the use of a card by someone else, using another person's card and altering a card.

I assure the member for Carleton East that I support this bill in principle. I honestly believe legislation that would place greater restrictions on the issue and use of health insurance identification cards should be coming from the Minister of Health, who is clearly responsible for the increased fraudulent use of health cards.

The health card program was introduced by the former government in 1989. This system, which replaced the Ontario health insurance plan numbers, was supposed to curb the amount of abuse of the system by assigning a number to each individual for life. This was supposed to help identify duplication and ineligible cardholders.

The former NDP Health minister admitted under intense questioning from my PC caucus colleague the member for Simcoe West that her government had issued approximately 400,000 more cards than there were Ontario residents. These unaccounted-for cards could cost our health system millions of dollars through fraudulent use. It has been estimated that for every 700 unaccounted-for cards, $1 million could be charged to the health care system, and that could amount to more than $428 million annually.

The current Health minister claims she will introduce measures which will include: a health card with a picture and personal information such as birthdate and gender; so-called swipe reader technology, capable of reading information encoded on the card's magnetic strip, installed in about 100 hospitals in the next two years; requiring proof of identity before replacing cards; a computer link to cancel a health card automatically when a cardholder dies.

There have to be things put in place which would do that, so I welcome these proposed security features and the changes that are being proposed. But I am still concerned that the cards could be used fraudulently because the Health minister is hesitant to prosecute those found to be using the health card fraudulently.

Our party has suggested that as an additional check the minister should implement a system in which all patients sign for treatment and receive a periodic statement showing the medical services that have been charged on their OHIP card. That could be much in the form of a credit card bill; when you go to the physician and get a bill, you would have a copy of it, the doctor would have a copy of it and he would send a copy to OHIP for replacement.

As well, the Health minister should enlist the assistance of banks and credit card companies in the private sector with expertise in eliminating fraud in the systems that use access cards.

There are still many checks and balances to be added to the health cards we have. What has been proposed here today is one step of what we're trying to do. I compliment the member for bringing this bill forward. I believe that the government should initiate some further steps.

When I get somebody coming into my constituency office with a health card that has been issued for the drug plan to the spouse of an individual, a person has been dead for two years, I'm telling you, there's something badly wrong with the system when those things are happening. What the member is trying to do here this morning is to try to stop that. I compliment him for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

I remember when David Reville said in the House: "A ministry official said that sorting cardholders into human and non-human groups could not be done at this time because summer holidays are coming. I'm wondering if the minister will assure us that this is not the much-ballyhooed better system we have been hearing about." That was Mr Reville when he was sitting here in opposition who mentioned something about the health card. I don't hear him saying much about it today. I hope the minister will support this bill. It would be in the right direction.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I very much welcome the chance to participate in this debate. I've listened with great interest to the comments. I appreciate the calm and rational contribution of the member for Simcoe West, much of which I agree with.

Normally, I'm a member of the standing committee on public accounts, and we have been looking at health cards. I think the record of that committee is very helpful, but I don't see that the member proposing this bill refers to the experience in that committee, because it has been very useful having witnesses come.

One of my impressions from that committee is that we are dealing with accountability. The question of fraud is always mentioned, but no one knows, and this is because we have a poorly accountable system; we do not know much about the losses there.

We also know very little about clinical accountability, which to me is of vast importance. This is never mentioned. I have never heard this mentioned in any of the contributions today, but we need to manage people's health. That's surprising to people, maybe, but we are not just a transfer agency; we are concerned with the health of populations. To me, this does require a registration system, so to that extent I totally agree that we need a registration system.

But why do we need cards? We maybe need cards because we are stuck with a fee-for-service system, but let me remind people that there is increasing criticism of a fee-for-service system, which more and more is being said is inappropriate for primary health care in particular. I hear people saying in good faith that everyone must sign, but what do we do with the people who have not registered themselves, the vulnerable? What about street people? I don't hear anything from the members opposite about what you do about street people, vulnerable people, who are permanent residents of this province. They are discounted, and that is really quite shameful.

Let me get back a little bit to the history. I've enjoyed doing some research on this bill. To quote from Elinor Caplan, June 4, 1990, "It would be virtually impossible to detect cases of intentional fraud without some kind of process such as the passport-like application process, and even there we know that where there is intentional fraud, that is very difficult to control." She's quite right, so why aren't we looking at alternatives?

There is indeed an alternative, which I think has been started to be discussed in the public accounts committee. I listened with interest to the member for Simcoe West, who has attended that committee, starting to realize that there may be alternatives. It seems to me that the alternative is a primary care registration system. I have introduced into the public accounts committee a very useful

article written by Drs Rosser and Forster of the universities of Toronto and Ottawa respectively, and this makes a cogent case for a primary care registration system which brings about a card-free approach, which is what you have in Britain.

Before I hear any sneers, Britain has a much cheaper system, popular, widely distributed, accessible primary care all over the country, which we should be introducing here. It would get away from the discounted problems of street people and native people and others. I haven't heard any suggestion about what happens to those people without cards when their non-cards expire. What is supposed to happen to them? They will get sick; they actually have a higher risk of getting sick.

We need some serious rethinking on this. I'm really surprised at the lack of understanding, the assumption that this bill in any way addresses real problems of clinical care throughout the province. Illness, I would remind people, is not like deciding to get your hair cut. It is something which strikes unpredictably, anything from the child falling in the school yard -- whatever. Because we have been persuaded that it's all cold visits to physicians' offices, we decide that's what it's all about and we get bills like this which do not address the real problem. I certainly intend to vote against this bill.

If it passes, I hope it remains in the public accounts committee, but there is a lot more work to be done on this than this bill suggests.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Let me start by congratulating the member for Carleton East, who has done, I think, a fabulous job in introducing this bill; arguing for it for many, many months now. Hopefully, we can get some action on this issue. He's a stubborn and resourceful man and has done a great job getting the bit between his teeth and moving this forward.

I want to spend a little bit of my time talking about the comments from the member for Simcoe West, who actually belongs to the progressive amnesia party as opposed to the Conservative Party, I think. Those family cards, which were reformed by the red and white cards, were first introduced in 1968, and by the time the red and white cards were introduced there were 26 million registrants in that system.

There are 22 years in there in which the Conservative Party was the government and did nothing, absolutely nothing, about reforming that system. The Liberal government came in and said, "We need to reform this, we need to get this under control," and quite rightly introduced the red and white cards. To her credit, the then Minister of Health said we would not have done anything differently but introduce the red and white cards.

What we really are faced with is a choice between some action to get the system into a sense of accountability, as the member for Scarborough East said, which both the NDP and the Liberal Party have said is what they tried to do with the red and white, and the other option is complete inaction, which is what the Conservative Party did. I guess there was some kind of conversion on the road to Damascus for the member for Simcoe West, but that can happen.

I do want to compliment the member for Simcoe East. As he knows, some of his constituents include my parents, and I think his calm, rational and very analytical comments are a tribute to him and his constituents, including my parents. Also, it's interesting when you think about who was the predecessor to the member for Simcoe West. It was George McCague. I'm not sure everyone remembers him, but he was a fine and wonderful fellow, a fabulous person, and I think at one point he may have been Chair of Management Board, responsible for the administration of public funds to a certain degree in this province.

Think, then, about 26 million registrants in the health card system. The member's predecessor in his very seat could have taken up this cudgel but chose not to. I guess maybe the member for Simcoe West is trying to atone for those sins now.

What is proposed here I think is a good first step. There are some things we can look at. Maybe we can use the current photo process for drivers' licence for some people to reduce the administrative costs.

Mr Frankford: What about street people?

Mr Murphy: The member for Scarborough East talks about street people. I appreciate the comment, because I'll tell you, the member for Carleton East was absolutely clear that no one would be refused treatment for lack of having a card. It would not be that difficult to have forms in emergency wards and clinics, which are the primary areas in which street people, for example, have access to health care; not through doctors' offices. I don't think it would be that difficult a system. It may not be perfect, but there are ways to get at it.

I am concerned about the government's agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to remove the version code, because I think that is one of the controls on the abuse of the system that is important to have and the elimination of it is a real problem.

Finally, I think we should look at the potential for some smart card technology in the photo card. I know there are now credit cards that are issued with both a photograph and some smart card technology, and maybe there's something there to be looked at.

But the member for Carleton East has done a good, good first effort. It would be easy enough to look at some of these innovations in committee, and I hope the government and the third party will support our efforts to have a chance to look at this in committee.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am glad to stand in my place today and speak to Bill 44. First of all, I'd like to say the member for Carleton East is a man of great integrity, and as a Deputy Speaker he's chosen this subject to be non-partisan, and I applaud him for that. I take great exception when the member for Simcoe West stands in his place and has the gall and the audacity to suggest that the Liberal government had the health cards printed to get a database for the 1990 election. That is sleazy and I regret that came out in this debate.

I also want to point out to the member for Simcoe West that the figures he based his argument on are completely erroneous. There's no doubt about it: Today, the health cards issued in the province of Ontario are probably equal to, if not less, than the population. I'm sure the member goes to bed with two health cards under his pillow and dreams about coming in here and rattling everybody about health card fraud on out-of-date figures, because that's all he seems to come here for every day. I'm getting sick and tired of this health care fraud. He's got no figures.

There's absolutely nothing to substantiate the degree of fraud in this province at all. There have been reports, but they can't be substantiated. It's a myth, and it's a myth that the member continues to perpetrate. He's not here. I wish he were here so he could listen to me. He's bolted.

I want to take up the comments of my colleague the member for Scarborough East. Obviously, there's a lot to do in health care. We have a problem with health cards. I hate to tell it in this House, but at one time I had four. You see, I got one because my second name was spelled wrong, I got another one when I mislaid it and I actually found it, and then I got another one when I was 65. Of course, being a credible member of this Legislature, I've destroyed the three I wasn't entitled to, but there is that air that you could sell them to people.

We've got to do something about health care in general. I like the idea of the member for Scarborough East that maybe we could stop health care fraud if you and I and all the people in Ontario were registered with a doctor, much the same as they are in England. Then, once that registration has taken place, that doctor could become like a shepherd of a flock. He could look through his files and say, "I'm going to weed out all the people who are over 65 and I'm going to send them a letter and say to them, 'Please come in here.'" I am sure that today there are untold thousands and thousands of senior citizens walking around with all kinds of complaints that they don't know about.

I think we as a government, as a health care system, should look into that and take care of those problems. How many people are walking around with diabetes, walking around with high blood pressure or, heaven forbid, walking around with undetected cancers? I think the government and the Health ministry have a role: to call those people in and screen them and prevent the terrible costs we have by preventable measures.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I want to commend the member for bringing this bill forward. The issue of health is obviously a very sacred one to the people of this country, when one looks at the United States literally falling over itself trying to emulate our system.

One can see that in the present federal election the Prime Minister is having difficulty when she says she's not going to reduce the services of health care but then we see a report come out saying that there will be reductions in various safety net programs. It becomes apparent that this is a very sacrosanct and very necessary thing for Canadians.

Therefore, when there is abuse or when there is overusage -- we were told it was $20 million, but the auditor's report I believe brought out that something in the neighbourhood of $100 million to $200 million worth of abuse was taking place in our system -- it becomes very necessary to come up with a program, and it has to be a program that is effectively going to keep our system intact. That becomes a non-partisan issue, an issue that all three parties in this House should attempt to deal successfully with.

I have to tell you that in the standing committee on public accounts, when we had before us the then Deputy Minister of Health, Mr Decter -- I'm not sure he is any more -- I drew to his attention the fact that in the application form that previously existed one could list oneself in eight different ways. For instance, I could be B. Callahan, R. Callahan, V. Callahan or Robert Callahan. I said to him that this actually provides an opportunity for a person to fraudulently receive eight cards. Perhaps that's how we got the 25 million cards out there; I don't know.

To his credit and I think to the credit of the public accounts committee, which I feel is in most issues non-partisan, the Deputy Minister of Health came back the next week and said that they had decided to adopt that program to in fact require a person to be listed on one card on the basis of the document that they provided, which could be your passport, your birth certificate or whatever. I have to say that was an opportunity to be non-partisan, and I believe that's the way this House should deal with this issue.

It's an excellent bill. I want to leave time for my other colleagues to get involved in this debate. I think this is a historic event. When it gets to committee, we can in fact make the bill a perfect one.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to add a few brief comments inasmuch as one of my colleagues also wants to speak to this matter. There are two things I want to say, essentially; much could be said about this. I think it important to understand that when the red and white card was introduced, concurrent with that was a major technical plan that would have given, over a period of time, an opportunity to update and bring on line a database that would provide information useful for health planning and management purposes.

I think it important to note that the current government chose not to proceed with those plans, and much of the fallout -- I don't say this to be critical, but it's the reality that much of the problem is the result of failure to follow through with that initiative and to do it properly and provide the data that were essential.

I want to add one other point. I say this with the greatest respect to my friend the member for Carleton East. I applaud him for his initiative, I applaud him for what he is suggesting to do, but the one caution I would raise is that we need to look at further technological assessment in review of the data and information systems that are available. By way of example, and only by way of example -- not to promote any particular product line or anything of that nature -- there are cards that are known as optical cards, which really are a generation beyond the photo ID card.

With that qualification, and adding that I think the concept the member has brought forward today and much of what has been spoken about -- there's obviously a need to respond to a situation in the health care system wherein we need to deal with fraud, control expenditures and, moreover, build into the system management and planning that can actualize savings far in excess of those savings that are sometimes very shallowly attributed to fraud. Yes, fraud is an issue, but there is much, much more to it.

In that context, I applaud the member. I congratulate him for his efforts and wish him success.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have only a minute and 30 seconds left, so first of all I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member for Carleton East on his bill. I know he's been working on Bill 44 and dreaming, eating, sleeping about it -- you name it. It was a very important bill and he deserves all the credit.

The kind of attitude from my colleague to my left, the member for Simcoe West, who came here on a leash to personally attack people, the former Minister of Health, the present Minister of Health --

Mr McClelland: Uncalled for.

Mr Grandmaître: Uncalled for. We cannot resolve our problems by attacking persons. We have to collectively try and find a solution, not only to this problem but to all of our problems in the province of Ontario, and I think that Bill 44 is the start of better things to come.

As he pointed out in his initial remarks, this is not the end, this is the start, a new bill to provide better services and also to better control the costs of health care. We need the assistance of care givers and we need the assistance of every Ontarian to be registered under their proper name and to respect what's in place.

Again, congratulations to my colleague the member for Carleton East.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Carleton East, Mr Morin, has two minutes in response.

Mr Morin: I would like to bring to your attention the numerous expressions of support that I have received since the introduction of Bill 44. This bill has garnered the enthusiastic support of district health councils from around the province.

Dr Tom Dickson, president of the Ontario Medical Association, has written to me: "Bill 44 is a good starting point. We all have a stake in our health care system."

Dr Gary Johnson, president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, personally supports Bill 44. This is significant, as it is not the college's usual practice to endorse private members' bills.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario Association of Optometrists have also been supportive.

I would further add that there is also general acceptance among the citizens of Ontario of such a measure. A recent survey distributed at random among 3,500 residents in my riding revealed an overwhelming support for the introduction of a photo expiry-date card system for health insurance. After culling the results from a 30% response rate, which is extremely high for such a mailing, the survey concluded with 99% approval of such an initiative. These numbers are significant and indicative of the importance that the residents of Ontario place on their health care system.

The many problems associated with the OHIP card are well known. Bill 44 provides the government with a bill that is ready and waiting. All it requires are some amendments which can be brought through the committee process. By investing now in a sound health care system, we will all reap the benefits later. Let's all work together. This issue concerns us all.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House, because it is almost 12 of the clock, that we deal with both private members' motions now? Agreed.

LAND CONSERVANCY CORPORATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES SOCIÉTÉS DE PROTECTION DES TERRES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 25 in the name of Mrs Mathyssen. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mrs Mathyssen's motion? If so, please rise.

Mrs Mathyssen has moved second reading of Bill 92,

An Act respecting Land Conservancy Corporations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall the bill be ordered to committee of the whole House? Agreed.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed with ballot item number 26 standing in the name of Mr Gilles Morin. Are there any members opposed to a vote on this bill? If so, please rise.

Mr Morin has moved second reading of Bill 44,

An act to amend the Health Insurance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading or committee of the whole?

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like this bill to be referred to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of sending the bill to the standing committee on social development, please rise.

The bill shall go to committee of the whole.

This completes private members' hour. The House will now stand adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1159.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I want to convey to this government my profound disappointment that it chose not to support Bill 44, the health card bill. This bill had gained the support of many people in the health field, from physicians and nurses to hospital administrators and bureaucrats within the Ministry of Health. It was extremely well received. No one denied that amendments were necessary, but it was agreed that these could be brought through the committee process.

But no. This government, for narrow political reasons, decided not to support Bill 44. Is it preparing to renege on its social contract agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, which states specifically that a new health card would be introduced? At this point, anything is possible.

This is indeed a very sad day for the province of Ontario and for the democratic ideals we're supposed to represent, because this government is saying that hard work and diligence take second place to narrow political advantage. This government prefers to let the problem fester rather than accept a solution from a member of the opposition. This problem must be solved. "Later" costs money, a lot of money. We have all lost.

Earlier today, this government demonstrated to the people of Ontario that it has failed to understand the basic principles of governing.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): As of October 5, the Ministry of Natural Resources has removed another 16,000 hectares of trees from the logging industry, but it says no to 132 jobs in the village of Braeside because of a shortage of trees. This intervention by the Ministry of Natural Resources has halted the purchase of a sawmill in Braeside.

I'm drawing the attention of the minister to what the people of Renfrew county have asked for. If the minister is truly interested in consulting the people, I ask him to listen to the following motion of Renfrew county council:

"Be it resolved that the council of the county of Renfrew demand that the Minister of Natural Resources proceed immediately to provide the required softwood timber allocation of eight million board feet per year for two years in order to allow the completion of the purchase and re-opening of the Braeside mill by Canadian Wood Products Inc."

Neil Mullins, reeve of Braeside, stated the following in this week's Arnprior Chronicle Guide:

"The recent action by MNR in a letter to loggers is nothing short of blackmail. The wood suppliers are very nervous because of this letter.... They feel that if they supply Canadian Wood Products with logs, future renewals of their order-in-council licence will be at risk."

I ask the minister to intervene immediately to allow these 132 jobs to be created in Braeside.

VINELAND THANKSGIVING ARTFEST

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House about an event that will draw thousands of people to my riding this weekend, the second annual Vineland Thanksgiving Artfest.

Organized as a fund-raiser for the Vineland Public School, this unique outdoor show will highlight the works of approximately 165 artists from across Canada. Also featured will be entertainment, food and onsite demonstrations.

Although no admission will be charged, organizers are hoping visitors will instead donate food or clothing, which will be distributed to the needy by Lincoln Community Care. Also, raffles will be held for various prizes, with the proceeds going to Lincoln Community Care, and there will be a food booth manned by grades 7 and 8 students hoping to raise money towards an upcoming class trip.

I'm sure this year's Artfest, which runs Saturday through Monday, will be a resounding success. I would like to congratulate the Vineland Public School, especially Artfest coordinators Gail Morley and Gesine Rogers, for organizing an event that will benefit the entire community.

I urge the members of this House and their constituents to come down to Vineland Public School this weekend and enjoy the Vineland Thanksgiving Artfest. The school is located on Victoria Avenue not far from the Queen Elizabeth Way.

Don't forget to check out another event that will be taking place just a few kilometres up the road: the 19th annual Balls Falls Thanksgiving Festival Craft Show and Sale.

Don't forget that all roads lead to Vineland this weekend.

REGULATION OF TRADESPEOPLE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today to condemn once again an action of the New Democratic Party government. They've done this by regulation, not by legislation in this House.

It's a draft regulation under the ozone-depleting substances regulation. What in effect it does is restrict the renewal and issuance of certificates to certified tradespeople only, specifically refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics, as of January 1, 1996.

Our party supports a measure that will limit ozone depletion, but we strongly disagree with this new

section because of the impact it will have on many small businesses. Some 7,500 technicians will be required to return to school. It's something like the elevator situation as well. That means that residential people will be denied access to a proper number of people who can adequately services these units.

I suggest that the New Democratic Party take another look at this, particularly doing it by regulation. It's a sneaky way of not allowing the elected representatives of this Legislature to speak out on behalf of small business people who will face bankruptcy if this regulation is allowed to stand. I suggest that this is just one more opportunity by this government to dash small business by, I suppose, the backdoor method of trying to get those people perhaps in the union occupations, who have not had jobs or who have been laid off, to be able to sneak in through the back door.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Last June I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to press his cabinet colleagues to institute a bait-dropping program to combat the spread of rabies in Grey. Clearly no action has been taken, as there has been a sharp increase in reported cases. Local health officials expect another virus, raccoon rabies, which turn raccoons into carriers, to appear in the area within the next six months to a year.

I cannot understand why this government has taken no action when it is presently spending more than $25 million a year for case investigation, diagnosis of rabies, livestock indemnity and human vaccinations. With the continuing spread, these costs are rising daily.

Rabies is a serious disease which is spread through saliva, usually through an animal bite, and it will kill an infected mammal. It horribly endangers children and pets while creating terrible financial hardships for farmers who lose their breeding cattle. Something must be done to combat this spread.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has had a successful bait-dropping program in effect in southeastern Ontario since 1989. Ministry staff are so pleased with the results that they have asked to have the program expanded to other affected areas such as Grey. Why will the minister not grant their request and the request of thousands of parents and farmers across the province? What more evidence does he need that action must be taken immediately?

LONDON 200 CONFERENCE

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to focus attention on a three-day event which will take place in London commencing October 27. Some of the world's best-known authorities will speak on topics relating to sustainable urban development and share with us their perspectives on development strategies in communities like ours.

As we celebrate London's 200th anniversary, the London 200 Conference, London into the Next Century: An Agenda for the Responsible City, will promote an inclusive vision of the future governed by planning in which ordinary people participate.

World leaders in science, industry and policymaking will share key ideas regarding sustainable development and planning with business leaders, educators, administrators, representatives of governments and environmental activists, students and citizens of all ages.

Resource people and speakers feature David Suzuki; Dean Jacobs of the Native People's Circle on the Environment and Development; Uppsala, Sweden, Mayor Gunnar Hedberg; and Maurice Strong, chair of Ontario Hydro and former secretary-general of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

The findings and recommendations made at the conference will be used in the city of London's Vision '96 process and will be incorporated into its strategic, social and economic plans in the new official plan for London.

I laud the goals and vision of the organizers of this London event.

WATER QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A news report in the St Catharines Standard under the byline of Doug Draper states:

"The Niagara River remains a 'major toxic pollution hot spot' in the Great Lakes basin despite years of effort to clean up the waterway, says a report to the International Joint Commission.

"Concentrations of several highly potent chemicals, flushing into Lake Ontario from pollution sources along the river's shores, continue to exceed water quality guidelines, says the report released by the IJC's Great Lakes science advisory board."

It's obvious from the lack of progress in dealing with the Niagara River that there must be certain measures taken. First of all, a new emphasis must be placed on environmental issues in general and on the cleanup of the Great Lakes basin in general as well.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy must be given the money, the staff, the resources and the clout to carry out its obligations and responsibilities, and not receive the backhand of the cabinet.

All parties which signed the Niagara River cleanup agreement in 1987 must be compelled to deal immediately and comprehensively with their sources of contamination if the agreement is to be worth more than the paper on which it was written and signed.

The environmental watchdogs in the public interest groups, the legislative bodies and the media must renew their efforts to bring environmental matters to public and government attention if indeed we are to succeed in cleaning up the Niagara River and the Great Lakes basin.

JAMES WARDLAW

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to honour a lawyer in my riding of Dufferin-Peel who is being presented with the Law Society Medal on October 21. This medal, presented by the Law Society of Upper Canada, recognizes James Wardlaw QC for his outstanding service within the legal profession.

James Wardlaw has excelled in all areas of the law during his 36 years of practice in the town of Orangeville and surrounding area. Mr Wardlaw began practising law in Orangeville when he was called to the bar in 1956. What began as a small practice with himself and his father, Norman Wardlaw, has expanded to become the largest law firm in Dufferin county.

Jim has always been known for his support of other professionals, as a valuable information source, a teacher and as a well-respected member of the legal profession. While Jim has always given his full commitment to the practise of law, he has also been an active member in his community by serving both as councillor and as reeve for the town of Orangeville and as people's warden for St Mark's Anglican Church, president of the Orangeville Rotary Club and president of the Dufferin County Law Association.

He has shared his knowledge by lecturing to groups of the public in local Law Day events, as well as municipal law seminars and business and estate law seminars. He is currently a well-respected bencher with the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr Wardlaw and wish him all the best as he accepts the Law Society Medal on October 21.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Once the fall waters turn chilly and the big rains lift the level of the Red Hill Creek, the robust chinook salmon will again follow their genetic path up the fast-flowing stream in an attempt to lay their pea-sized eggs. Unfortunately, they won't get far. About halfway up the stream the fish will arrive at a concrete channel and small weir that was built as part of the construction of the controversial north-south leg of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Last year the only salmon that cleared the dam were the ones that were lifted over by concerned citizens. Dozens of fish died before they were able to spawn.

This channel and weir was built with absolutely no regard to fish habitat whatsoever. In fact, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources says the design may violate the federal Fisheries Act. This encroachment must be rectified to allow safe passage of migratory fish.

It wasn't too long ago when Liberal leader Lyn McLeod paraded through the area with her entourage of Liberal hopefuls telling local residents to vote for them and they will reinstate funding for the Red Hill Creek Expressway. They called the valley a neglected cesspool. Well, the salmon and even the trout that use that stream don't think so, because they return every year to that very place to complete their life cycle.

I'll tell you, Mrs McLeod, if you are elected, and God help us if that happens, you'd better buy hip waders, because thousands of people who support the preservation of the valley will expect to see you and your Liberal lackeys in that stream, helping the salmon continue their voyage up the stream.

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Recently, MPPs' salaries were reduced by approximately $10,000 a year over the next three years. I think this move has been viewed by the public as a step in the right direction.

The residents of Ontario hold another common view, and that's that members of this Legislative Assembly and the House of Commons in Ottawa are merely a group of self-serving individuals who are more interested in their own good rather than the public good. What really disturbs the public is that members of both Houses are entitled to what can only be described as cash-for-life pension plans upon defeat or retirement.

Many residents of the Kitchener riding question me about why an elected member of this Legislature should be compensated for life after only five years of service. Take anyone who serves in this House continuously from 1985 to 1990. Each and every one of those individuals would be entitled to approximately a quarter of a million dollars for just five years of service. When it comes to MPPs' and MPs' pension plans, the public is enraged, and rightly so, for it sees a benefit that is not even remotely connected to the real world.

Today, I'm calling on the government of Ontario to increase the age of eligibility to 55 years, to put an end to double-dipping and to increase the amounts of premiums individual MPPs pay. I think the public is appealing to the government and all members for leadership on this issue, and I can think of no better way to demonstrate to the public that all of us are really much more concerned with the public interest rather than our own interest.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It's come to my attention that there is a rather detailed report on corrections in this province that apparently gives the government a bad mark. The report has not been released. As you know, I'm Correctional Services critic. Without the release of that report and the opportunity to see it, I'm deprived of the right to carry out my responsibilities as critic for the official opposition in terms of corrections.

I call upon the minister to release the report. Are they afraid of what's in it? Are they going to bury it just like they did the medical report? I ask you, Mr Speaker, to intervene and to restore my privileges and require them to release the report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege. However, it does sound as if he is on the question list today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Housing. You perhaps will be aware that this morning the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario released a second Clayton Research Associates study that looks at the long-term cost of not-for-profit housing construction in comparison to a shelter allowance program. The study shows that by the time the mortgage on a not-for-profit housing project is paid off, the interest alone on that mortgage makes the government-built project much more expensive than an alternative program would be.

I ask you, will you accept this new study as further evidence of the need to review your not-for-profit housing program?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The Ministry of Housing and I as Minister of Housing accept all information available about the housing market, about the choices to be made in public policy between providing shelter allowances, which we do to a very large scale in Ontario, and/or the provision of non-profit, new, affordable housing units, and of course this material will be considered seriously.

I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is true for any family household that purchases a home that by far the largest cost involved in a long-term mortgage situation is interest. That's the way the world is in a free, private-market financial situation.

Most of us don't have the money to provide cash up front to buy a home and therefore we take out long-term mortgages. The richer we are, of course, the shorter the mortgage we can afford. In this case, the public of Ontario is guaranteeing mortgages that go over 35 years, and I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that what that gets you is a house that's affordable.

Mrs McLeod: I would suggest to the minister that this question has nothing to do with private home purchases. Private home ownership is not something which figures anywhere in this government's housing policy. What we're talking about is the way in which this government meets the needs for social housing. There is more and more evidence of the sheer inefficiency of the programs that are currently in place, and that's what we draw to this minister's attention.

Surely, the minister will agree that in these very difficult financial times, the dollars that are available for any of our social programs are extremely scarce and that every single dollar has to count. The tax dollars for social housing have got to be well spent, Minister. I take you back to the Provincial Auditor's report, which clearly showed the waste that is in the program. You will surely remember that report showed that the average annual subsidy for new not-for-profit construction is now in the $12,500- to $15,000-a-year range, and that's as much as it costs to rent a luxury apartment on Bay Street these days.

It is so clear to everyone except you that the dollars for affordable housing have simply got to be spent in a more cost-efficient way. In the face of all of this evidence, how can you justify planning to continue with the allocation of funds for 30,000 more units?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't begin to tell you the number of errors that are contained in that so-called question. First of all, our new Jobs Ontario Homes program is for 20,000 units; I repeat, 20,000. What it will provide over the period in which the building is going on is 33,000 full years of work for people in this province. What it will provide when those units are complete is affordable housing which will stay as a public asset in this province. It will stay affordable for 35 years.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about how we are using precious moneys on this very good investment. She wants them all transferred to shelter allowances. Twenty-five per cent of what landlords in the private market -- I repeat, private rental market -- of Ontario receive in rents comes from tax dollars. That is the biggest rental subsidy program going in this country. If she wants to just keep on adding to that instead of making an investment, she needs to rethink housing policy.

Mrs McLeod: Just for the sake of thoroughness, there were 10,000 units originally proposed in 1991 and a further 20,000 units proposed. It was a total of 30,000 units, and they are still in the planning stage.

I am well aware, as the minister cites the numbers of short-term jobs that construction in housing will create, that this government's main response to the need to solve our unemployment problem is to talk about spending more dollars on government projects. I'm also aware that the not-for-profit housing program is this government's sole response to the need for affordable housing.

We are not advocating exclusively an alternative program, whether of shelter allowances or rent subsidies or the abandonment of the not-for-profit housing program. Simply listen to what it is we are raising as an issue of concern, minister: We are arguing for the cost-effective use of the dollars that you have available for affordable housing, and I don't hear you willing to look at any of the evidence of inefficiencies, whether it is an outside-conducted study or whether it is your own Provincial Auditor's report. I don't hear you willing to look at any alternatives.

We have asked you to place a moratorium on the further allocation of not-for-profit units until an immediate review of this program can take place. Will you put that moratorium in place, and will you begin that review of your housing programs immediately?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Durham East.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition is saying to us things which are totally self-contradictory. She says, first of all, that all she wants is a little concern for the facts. That's a mutual kind of feeling, let me assure her; I would like her to have a little concern for the facts. Second, she says this concern should lead to a moratorium. That means, "Let's get concerned, but let's stop in the meantime."

We have a balanced policy to help people who need help and assistance in this province. There have been cases in which housing developments in the non-profit program have been too expensive. They were initiated under your former government.

Let me say that the figures she has cited for the annual subsidy costs in new non-profit are incorrect, and she should get them correct. When she talks about facts for the need for assisted housing in this province, she should think about balance, $2.5 billion that goes out year after year if people are in need and doesn't create a stick of new affordable rental housing, and a modest investment