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

November 3, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

DRUG DEPENDENCY

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

DRUG DEPENDENCY

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE CHIEF

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

MARDI COLLINS

COURT RULING

JOB SECURITY

TRIBUTES

RAE DAYS

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

JOBS ONTARIO

VISITORS

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

NOBEL LAUREATES

CASINOS LE CASINO

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

CASINOS

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

REMEMBRANCE DAY / JOURNÉE DU SOUVENIR

VIOLENCE

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

ONTARIO BUS INDUSTRIES INC

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 92

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HEALTH INSURANCE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LIQUOR LICENSING

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HAEMODIALYSIS

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

FIREARMS SAFETY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

HAILEYBURY JAIL

FIREARMS SAFETY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOB SECURITY

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DRUG DEPENDENCY

Mr Ruprecht moved private member's notice of motion number 50:

That, in the opinion of this House, since it is desirable that the province reduce the immense costs -- perhaps $500,000 or $1 million per addict -- of the crime committed by people who steal and commit mayhem in order to support their drug habits; and

Since intervention is needed to recover the wasted human potential and productivity associated with such addiction; and

Since most American states have legislated driver's licence suspensions for persons convicted of drug offences; and

Since the legal framework is already in place for medical treatment of addicts with methadone;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act and Courts of Justice Act to provide that the Ministry of Transportation receive notification of all convictions for drug trafficking offences and that it impose an administrative one-year suspension of (or postponed eligibility for, or postponed restoration of) the driver's licence of anyone convicted under any statute of a trafficking offence; and

To dedicate funds for methadone treatment; designate hospitals or other existing medical service providers which must make the treatment available and be responsible for the monitoring involved; and cooperate with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario quickly to develop guidelines to govern adequate and controlled approval of physicians for Bureau of Dangerous Drugs treatment licences, in such numbers and locations as will facilitate the orderly expansion of methadone treatment in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Ruprecht moves private member's notice of motion number 50. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to introduce this resolution this morning. The intention of this resolution is to make it easy for people who are drug-dependent to get off drugs and to make it hard for those drug dealers. The question we must ask ourselves this morning is this: How do we reduce the human misery and suffering and pain by those experiencing drug dependency? A second question: How do we reduce the social cost of drug abuse in Ontario, estimated to be $9.1 billion annually? That's the estimate by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, and it's a 1989 figure. This $9.1 billion, a five-year-old figure, would be enough to wipe out this year's debt in Ontario.

How do we attempt to come to grips with this kind of question and the issue of drug dependency? Let's quickly pursue the history of this. There have been, of course, in Ontario a number of attempts made to answer this drug dependency question. The first major report, as all of us in this Legislature know, was the Ken Black report of 1988. Essentially, the recommendation was to establish a provincial coordinating body, and that that be clearly defined and identified to provide the coordination and focus and leadership to ensure that drug dependency would be reduced.

The follow-up report of the Ken Black report was the second major item. It was a 1989-90 report chaired by Garth Martin and called Vision for the 90's. The recommendation of that report was to establish special emphasis on early intervention. The recommendation that came from that report included the stopping or the termination of the US treatment. We had sent a lot of Ontarians down to the United States because they had better treatment, but of course it was a lot costlier. In fact, the estimated cost for Ontarians in one year was between $50 and $80 million spent in US treatment centres. It's a tremendous amount of money. The recommendation ensured that came to an end.

The third report was a follow-up to the Vision for the 90's report. It was a parliamentary committee chaired by George Mammoliti, which was nothing more than a PR exercise since the Vision recommendations of two years prior to this report were simply republished. The report, of which I have a copy, is called Caring For Each Other: The People of Ontario Respond to Alcohol and Drug Treatment Problems. Again, since the recommendations in this report were the same as the report of Vision for the 90's, nothing much has changed except that they say we have to care for each other.

The response would be: How can we care for each other if we have no drug treatment facilities or if they are reduced? What are the facts today? The facts are that the response to this report, which was the third report dealing with drugs in Ontario, was the destruction, the elimination of the Provincial Anti-Drug Secretariat. In fact, the very recommendation that was made in all these reports was eliminated. What was the recommendation? To establish focus and leadership to ensure that every Ontarian should have access to drug treatment.

We know the misery. We know what's happening out there in the real world. Why does the Addiction Research Foundation say the social cost is $9.1 billion? That is a staggering figure. Why is the conclusion made in this report? It's simple: Every drug addict has one thing in mind, and that is to maintain the habit. So all day long, what do the drug addicts do in Ontario? They try to maintain the habit, meaning they've got to steal. There will certainly be costs in our court system.

The police have to come in and be effective, and finally, it costs all of us in terms of police reports, break and enter, violent crimes and so on. In fact, the mayor of Toronto, just a year ago, said, "Metro's flourishing drug trade is largely to blame for a 9.3% increase in violent crimes." In short, how can we come to a conclusion on this issue? If we think about how to reduce crime in Ontario, obviously the mayor is correct: Crime is fuelled by drug activity.

So it is quite easy to see that we need to act and we need to act quickly. If we want to eliminate crime even one or two degrees, if we want to eliminate it or reduce it one or two percentage points, we've got to consider the idea that there's a relationship between drugs and crime. The response of this government has not been sufficient. That is, we have to re-establish a focus and leadership to eliminate the kind of mayhem that's being caused in our streets and to eliminate the human suffering and the human problems associated with drug addiction.

I apply my recommendation to the government leaders who are right now sitting there looking at me. You've got to do one thing: re-establish the anti-drug secretariat to produce the focus and leadership that's necessary; and second, and it is part of my resolution, of course, dedicate the necessary funds for an expansion of methadone treatment. That does not necessarily mean you put all the methadone treatment centres in one area, and Parkdale comes to mind here. That means the whole focus, the catchment area, beyond the boundaries of Metro Toronto. Where do people go if they want to get off drugs?

Every one of us probably has received phone calls from some concerned parent saying, "Please, MPP, find a space for my son" or "my daughter, because they want to get off drugs." What is our response? If you call any drug treatment centre in Ontario, and I dare you to do this, you will find that the waiting period for a person who wants to get into one of these centres to get off drugs is now between -- can you imagine this? -- six months and one year. If you want to get into a drug treatment program, it takes you six months to one year.

That's unheard of, not only in terms of the continuation of human suffering and problems associated with it, but the very cost to our social fabric and to our social life in Ontario.

We've got to address it quickly because there are out there between 15,000 and 25,000 heroin addicts alone who are looking to us for some leadership, and some of them obviously try to get into a drug rehabilitation program, and we say no. We slam the doors. We wash our hands and we say, like Pontius Pilate, "It's not our problem." If it isn't a problem of Ontario, then whose problem is it? And then, of course, how are we going to deal with this issue?

There are three things that have to be done.

First, this government has to produce some leadership, and the one way to do it is to re-establish the anti-drug secretariat.

Second is that we designate health care providers, and I would think specifically hospitals, because hospitals would be most effective in terms of drug treatment. I know there are very few physicians who want to get into the program of drug treatment because of the associated and affiliated problems, so consequently the recommendation would be to designate hospitals that wish to get into the program, all over Ontario, not just in the one area of Toronto.

Third, and just as important, is the issue of cooperation between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to develop some guidelines between them and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs treatment licence programs in Ottawa. There has to be coordination.

Those are the three recommendations in this part of my resolution.

The second part of my resolution is obvious. That deals with automatic driver's licence suspensions for drug dealers. I'll address that issue in the next few minutes. At this stage of the game, I'd like to ask all members here to look at those three recommendations and to support them.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment on the resolution brought to the attention of this House by the member for Parkdale. In the briefest of terms, the member for Parkdale, recognizing the immense cost of crime committed by people who steal and commit mayhem in order to support drug addiction, wants the provincial government to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Courts of Justice Act to impose an administrative one-year suspension of or to postpone eligibility for, or postpone restoration of, the driver's licence of anyone convicted under any statute of a trafficking offence.

As well, the member for Parkdale wants the province to dedicate funds for methadone treatment and expand methadone treatment programs and facilities in Ontario for addicts.

I support the resolution in principle, but perhaps it could be amended to recognize that Ontarians have been horrified by the recent number of alcohol-related accidents which have maimed or killed innocent people on this province's roads. To that end, my PC caucus colleague the member for Mississauga South has been working on legislation which would revoke a repeat drunk driver's licence for life.

As well as revoking driving privileges for repeat offenders, the member for Mississauga South wants an automatic suspension of a person's licence while awaiting trial on an impaired driving charge or confiscation of a person's automobile if that person drives while his or her licence is suspended.

My colleague noted that 59% of convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders and that drunk driving is the number one killer of young people. Perhaps the member for Parkdale might consider amending his resolution to cover anyone addicted to behaviour-altering substances, including alcohol.

It was interesting to note recent comments made by the Attorney General, who said our prisons are too costly and too crowded and that alternatives to imprisonment must be found for non-violent offenders.

The Attorney General suggested that despite a 30% expansion since the 1980s, Ontario's prison system remains overcrowded because more than 75,000 people were sent to prison last year. More than 87% of them were jailed for municipal and provincial offences like parking, speeding, liquor offences. The Attorney General said more creative ways must be sought to combine preventive measures and to find more effective rehabilitative solutions to minor crime.

I would suggest that one of those creative ways of combining preventive measures with more effective rehabilitative solutions would involve keeping a high-calibre and a low-cost facility like Camp Hillsdale open.

The Correctional Services minister claims that closure of the minimum security Camp Hillsdale is expected to save the province approximately $1.1 million next year. I would suggest this cost saving is a myth, because in this resolution the member is saying that from $500,000 to $1 million is what it costs to rehabilitate an addict. So when we're looking at closing a camp in the country, with 72 beds, which provides food, wouldn't it make an ideal setting for a rehabilitation facility for drug addicts at a minimal cost? In this case, they have relocated the staff. Salaries are approximately $800,000.

This facility would be excellent for addicts. It was a farm: They raised pigs, they had roasting chickens, they had turkeys, they had eggs, maple syrup, potatoes, onions and cabbage that were produced at this camp and consumed in other facilities such as the Barrie Jail; they supplied food for the Barrie Jail. So with regard to this resolution, I think the ideal spot for a new rehabilitation centre is at this very facility that was closed.

We now have to transport inmates from the Barrie facility to the Monteith Correctional Centre or the Burtch Correctional Centre, and the average cost per diem of housing, feeding and administrating an inmate will be considerably higher. In this case, the average cost at Ontario facilities is $128, while at Camp Hillsdale it was $80.

As well, it is extremely difficult at this time to provide an accurate balance sheet for the operations of that camp because the revenue generated by the production of the meat and vegetables is transferred directly to the government's general revenue fund and not credited to the minimum security correctional facility.

We look at all this going on within the Ministry of Correctional Services. Just this week the Attorney General said it costs more than $800 a week to jail an adult and more than $1,900 a week, which is nearly $100,000 a year, to keep a young offender in custody. She said that of the charges Ontario's justice system handles, 10.6% are Criminal Code and drug offences and 2.2% are young offender charges.

A report from the public institutions inspections panel of the county of Simcoe said it "was extremely pleased with (Camp Hillsdale) in general and pleasantly surprised that the provincial government has a productive, self-sufficient institution, incorporating the inmates as a workforce. We strongly feel that this facility be a model for other minimum security institutions due to its cost-effectiveness, self-sufficiency, assistance to outside charitable organizations, the community at large...."

Surely the Attorney General must agree that this camp should be reopened. When we're looking at this piece of legislation and looking for a place for drug addicts to be rehabilitated, this is an ideal setting.

Having said this, you really have to wonder if this government is ever going to get its priorities in order. I doubt it, because time is running out very quickly for this government.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): This is a motion which raises a lot of questions that people have been reflecting on for some time in our society, and I would like to make just a few comments.

I haven't yet determined how I feel about the notion of associating a drug conviction with the removal of a licence. I think that in many instances we can use the privilege of having a driver's licence to make sure that people follow rules in our society that we think are important.

But what lies behind my concern about using it in this case is our overall approach to dealing with the abuse of drugs in our society, and if I could just reflect on some of the comments that were made by the sponsor of this motion, I'll tell you why I'm concerned about the approach that we take.

For many years now, the use and abuse of drugs has been associated with youth in our society, which I think is mistaken. All of us who are adults know that there are severe problems with the use of drugs, the abuse of drugs, not only by youth but by adults in our society, and in fact we know -- we know here in Ontario by research work that has been done here in Ontario -- that the major problem is the use and abuse of alcohol.

We also know, and we all know from our youth, that that has been a problem which has affected youth in our society for decades. If we all think back to our high school days, we recollect that alcohol was a major problem among youth that we knew in our high schools. That continues, and it continues to be identified by the people who know what's happening with the use and abuse of substances, illegal substances and legal substances, in our society. It continues to be identified as the major problem of youth and adults in Ontario, and Ontario's not different from the rest of North America.

But we have to at this stage in time start thinking about our ineffectivity, the fact that we have not come to grips with the use and abuse of illegal and legal substances in our society over decades of criminalizing, of providing people with criminal records. All kinds of programs -- Nancy Reagan's Just Say No -- the whole package of programs that we've used has not been satisfactory. In many instances I think we can point to sturdy research that indicates that the medical model of treatment suggested by the sponsor of this motion is not the best kind of approach.

The sponsor refers to the need for having the involvement of doctors and the medical profession and hospitals in treatment programs. I think what we know from the experience that we've had with programs which have been successful is that they're not primarily delivered through the medical model or by physicians.

They're effective when they are primarily delivered in community-based settings, sometimes on an outpatient basis, sometimes in a residential setting for at least a time by people who may not be medical practitioners at all but who have a very strong sense of what drives people to use illegal and legal drugs and substances to the point where they're harming their own lives and the lives of other people.

I want to say another word about the criminalization of our problems with the use of legal and illegal substances. I was very struck a couple of years ago by a report done under the auspices of the Ottawa-Carleton district health council. It was a survey of both the problems and the programs associated with youth substance abuse in Ottawa-Carleton.

If you put together the information in that report, Mr Speaker, which I know would have been of particular interest to you, what you discover is that in the average year in Ottawa-Carleton these days we charge about 4,000 young people with the use of drugs. They go through the justice system and we deal with them as a social problem and so on, and we don't deal very effectively with them, I think.

In the same average year about 2,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton, most of them adult males, are charged with alcohol offences. If we're honest, we've got to say to ourselves there is something wrong in this situation, because we know there is a huge problem with alcohol in Ottawa-Carleton, as there is in every community in this province and in every community in North America, and that alcohol is easily identified as a much more significant problem than heroin use, which is the focus, of course, of the sponsor of this resolution.

Yet we are charging twice as many young people with drug offences in the civilized community of Ottawa-Carleton as we are charging mainly adult males with alcohol offences.

We've got this wrong. We've got things upside down. We have criminalized where we should not criminalize. We are not providing the non-medical models of assistance and support that young people need and that older substance abusers need. With that part of the motion I agree, but I don't agree with the direction of the motion, because I think it is a repetition of prescriptions which haven't worked in the past.

I would draw to the attention of members of the Legislature that even a person who works in the field of justice, such as the chief of police for the city of Ottawa, Chief Brian Ford, has suggested very strongly and very thoughtfully, in my view, that where it comes to drug offences that young people are now being charged with for the use of so-called soft drugs, we're really creating more of a problem than we're solving.

I think we need to look at the way we've dealt with the whole problem of the use and abuse of legal and illegal substances in our society. I appreciate the fact that the member has brought this motion forward, because it gives us some time to think about what we've learned over the last few decades about what works and what doesn't work, but I'd like to see more indication from him that in fact he's willing to take a fresh look at it.

On the question of removal of licences, I still have not made up my mind.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr Ruprecht: First, let me thank the member for Simcoe East for his remarks. His request, of course, is essentially that we would include the drunk driving amendment in this resolution. Personally, I would have little problem to do that, except of course in this instance it has to do with the treatment of methadone; it has to do with helping people immediately. I know what's going to happen here if we start to make these changes to be encompassing and to expand the inclusion of other items: This bill would never see the light of day.

Anyone who is familiar with the process in this Legislature will know that minute tinkering with any of the bills would have great repercussions in terms of coming to an agreement here. So personally, I would say to the member for Simcoe East, I have no problems. The only problem I would have in this is, how do we come to an agreement? Of course, that would be one of the major problems here.

His second point was, and I quote him, our prisons are full. Our prisons are full of people. Of course they're full, because what we've done in the past and what we've locked ourselves into is a situation where we are punishing anyone who, in some minute detail even, comes in contact with drugs: a carrier, a person who has some substance on him or anything that has to do with even a minor infraction of the law. So the whole enforcement mechanism comes into play and we say to people, "Okay, we're going to punish you totally," and there are very few ways out.

I'm not surprised that our prisons are full because of this very fact of how we treat persons who are found to come in contact with drugs. The emphasis of course should be shifted. The emphasis should be on how we help people and one that's specifically designed to come to grips with the treatment programs. The answer, of course, has to be that we have no time left to fiddle with minor details of various resolutions, simply because of the human suffering and pain that's out there right now.

I've said this earlier in my remarks. If you have a person who is trying to get off drugs, even if he's in prison, federal or provincial, he has a tough time getting the treatment. If we want to move away from punishment, to help, especially those of our citizens who have indicated that they want to get off drugs, they wish to get off this dependency, this necessary, from their perspective, evil, we don't have the institutions nor the necessary will to do this.

That leads me to the remarks from the member for Ottawa Centre. I appreciate what the member is saying and I appreciate her sensitivity to the problem. I want to thank her that she has at least some understanding and obviously some agreement with this particular resolution.

When she says alcohol is a major problem, she will not find any disagreement with me or with any member on this side of the House. We can identify people who have alcohol problems, and there are thousands in the province as well. But what we're asking for specifically is not to befuddle the issue. We have to come to grips now with treatment. So the cry has to be: "Treatment now for drug addicts who want to get off drugs." If you want to include anyone who's got an alcohol problem, of course, you have to expand the treatment centres. There is a need out there as well. But my question is, where is the leadership of this government in the way?

When Ken Black wrote the first report -- and I do not wish to be partisan here; it doesn't make any sense. You would certainly agree with me that Ken Black's report was a good first step in coming to grips with the issue, to identify the issue and make the recommendations. There's no doubt about that.

Putting partisan ideas aside, the point is that the recommendation of the Black report was a good one, and what was it? It was to establish a centre of focus, a coordinating committee of all ministries to provide some leadership, and I think that you would have no problem with that. In fact I think you agreed with it. You left it alone for two years when you took over the government.

But what I cannot understand is you're saying here, "Look, we're doing something wrong." Of course we've done something wrong in the past. "We've got this wrong," you say, another quote, and you say the medical model may not be the best, which may also not be a bad idea. But the major question here is, if we've got this wrong, if there is something wrong and if you don't agree with the direction of this motion -- and I know you're somewhat sensitive to this item -- then what's the answer to this question? The answer obviously has to be to provide some leadership.

How are we going to supply some leadership? We've tried. We didn't come to grips with it in 1990; we took the first baby steps. Then when you came into office in 1990, you would think that the recommendations of the Black report, which had been repeated by the Vision for the 90's report -- some of the same recommendations from the Black report are found there and then repeated in a report called Caring For Each Other. Then to dismantle the anti-drug secretariat, which was the recommendation of all three reports, I don't understand this.

Perhaps if you have another chance to speak today you could tell me how this could possibly take this turn, that all reports point to one item as the beginning of a baby step, and that item was to establish the anti-drug secretariat. We did, you left it alone, and after you came out with the same recommendations in 1991 in the report Caring For Each Other, you then set about to destroy the anti-drug secretariat. Mr Speaker, do you understand this? Do any of you understand this? I don't.

Now I don't want to blame any of you, because probably there are few of you who had a direct finger in this decision-making process. I know there have been, and there are right now, a number of cabinet ministers here. I would like to know from any of you: If this decision was made in cabinet, why did you possibly agree with it, especially when you've come up with the same conclusions we've come to?

The conclusion is, how do we help people with a drug dependency? We're not going to help them by destroying the anti-drug secretariat. So I don't get it. If you get it, please tell me how you're going to do this.

You're saying to me, especially the member for Ottawa Centre -- and again, she agrees with some of the recommendations here. But if it is not the direction of this motion she agrees with and if this government says at the same time, since she's been a minister in different portfolios, that we haven't come to grips with this item and we've done something wrong, then obviously if it isn't the establishment of the secretariat, what have you done? Where is your leadership? You've agreed with the recommendations. What have you done? What steps have you taken to help the people out there?

All of us who've got families know that many of us are affected by this. People are crying out to us and saying: "Let us open the doors. Get me some treatment."

If you would examine the prison system, looking at both federal and provincial jails, and ask specific questions in terms of what treatment is available even in the prison system, you come up again with the same conclusion.

Interjection: There are lots of drugs in the prison system.

Mr Ruprecht: There may be lots of drugs in the prison system, as you say, but the member would know that there are very few treatment programs even in the prison system. So it seems if we do not wish to lose a whole generation of people -- you think, Mr Speaker, I'm really expanding it now to include a whole generation, but if you would receive phone calls as I have of fathers and mothers saying, "Please help my son; please help my daughter; please do something in terms of treatment," and I have to say to them, "Let me make a phone call." I'll phone five centres and each centre says to me, "I'm sorry, Mr Ruprecht, but our places are full."

What models do you have now that would help us in terms of getting people off drugs? What do you do next? What is your next step? That is precisely the question we have to ask this government. If you agree with us in terms of losing people on the street, if you agree that our police are inundated with calls, if you agree with the mayor of Toronto that crime is directly connected with drug abuse, if you agree with that, and I think most of you don't disagree with it, then the next question has to be, what steps are you going to take?

You still have a mandate. In case you forgot, you are still the government. So when you get the phone calls, what is your answer to those people who are in direct misery? I almost beg you to look at this question and ask you, how are you able to help? Tell me this: Would this government be opposed to asking the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to streamline and produce some guidelines that would connect Toronto or this government with Ottawa so that the licences that are being given to doctors can be done quicker? Are you unwilling to look at those guidelines?

Are you unwilling to call the college, which is just across the street, and say, "Can you produce these guidelines so that methadone treatment can be readily available to physicians in Ontario who want it?" I personally know there are a number of physicians who would like to get a methadone treatment licence.

We also know that we cannot suck in all the people of Metro Toronto in one small area of Toronto and say, "There will be treatment available there." Then of course it isn't available. Not only that, but secondly, we cannot centre all the treatment in a community centre in one area of town. When we have 15,000 to 25,000 persons alone on heroin and some of them of course would like to get off heroin, then it would make sense to establish methadone treatment centres, which have been proven to be effective, in other parts of Toronto, in fact in other parts of Ontario.

Look at your cities where you come from. Do you have treatment available? No. If you don't have treatment available in other cities than Toronto, what do you think people do there to maintain their drug habits? And those who want to get off drugs, where do they go? If you do not have centres of treatment available in other centres of Ontario, you are condemning those people to move to Toronto to look for treatment. Of course, since there is no treatment here, we will end up with even more problems, with people on the street, with people in psychiatric institutions, the whole revolving-door policy will come into play and nothing much will get accomplished.

I want to briefly touch on another aspect and that is Mr George Chuvalo, who is now interested to start the George Chuvalo Hope Foundation. He writes a letter to me and he says to me, as mentioned, the foundation which he tries to establish "will initially build a drug rehabilitation centre in Metropolitan Toronto to help our youth." This is a private person trying to raise funds because he sees the great need that's out there for our youth and those who are drug-dependent. He says he wants to create a foundation with private money because of the need. He says:

There are many of our youth who "increasingly, because of lack of work, despair and poverty, are turning more and more to drugs and, resultingly, crime. Our ultimate aim is to build these centres across Ontario, and then Canada, in an effort," George says, "not only to help those in need of rehabilitation, but to educate, lecture and raise awareness of the consequences of the use of illicit drugs."

It's not George Chuvalo who is responsible to come up with a treatment program; it is this government that's responsible to come up with a treatment program. The thousands upon thousands of residents of Ontario, citizens of this country, who are unable to get treatment deserve better from our government.

On this part, in conclusion, I'd like to say and put it at the feet of those who can do something about it, and that is this NDP government: If you agree with this resolution, I salute you, but if you don't agree for some minor variance, then it is incumbent upon you to come forward and develop policy so that many thousands of residents have the treatment centres that are necessary in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The private member's resolution before us this morning I think has some positive aspects and has perhaps some things that were overlooked by the member for Parkdale. But I want to say from the beginning that I will be recommending to my colleagues in the PC caucus that we support this resolution on the whole.

There are two aspects to the resolution. One is suspending the driver's licence of anyone convicted of drug trafficking. I think that's good, but I want to make sure that something hasn't changed in this province, and that is, I think drug traffickers should be put in jail and I hope to goodness that prisoners these days aren't driving. Therefore, it may be a little redundant to suspend their driver's licences, because they should be in jail.

But I will note that the member for Parkdale has balanced this resolution by talking about methadone treatment, and I think as Health critic for my party that's something I want to concentrate on.

Also, in speaking about prisoners, I'm not sure today in this province that prisoners and heroin addicts who go to jail are receiving treatment. I think the availability of treatment in our prison system is far below what is clearly needed, both in methadone treatment and indeed in mental health treatment. About 20% of our prisoners, it is estimated, across Canada have severe mental health problems, and they're not receiving the levels of treatment and the frequency of treatment that's required so that when they are finally released they will be able to integrate as productive members of our society.

The second aspect of the resolution deals with methadone treatment. Just so everyone knows exactly what methadone is, it is a narcotic that reduces or eliminates the craving for heroin by minimizing withdrawal symptoms without making patients high. The rationale for its use is to stabilize the addict while lifestyle changes are gradually made. In some cases, there is gradual weaning from methadone use, but for some addicts they may indeed end up on methadone for an indefinite period of time.

I want to give credit to our legislative intern, Mr Greg Moore, who contacted the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Addiction Research Foundation on my behalf. Some of the pros and cons that came from those organizations and other research are that we have to keep in mind that methadone, while it is an effective treatment and currently the only treatment available in Ontario for heroin addicts, really is a swap of one drug for another, and we should keep in mind that it does not cure the heroin addiction.

Buprenorphine and clonidine are two drugs that, while they're not approved in Canada, have been found by American researchers to be better than methadone. Both of these drugs give patients a high, but it's not as much of a high as that with methadone.

The cost of providing methadone to the estimated 13,000 heroin addicts in Ontario is $7.15 million per year, or $5,500 per patient per year. That's the estimated cost that this resolution would require the government to put forward in dollars if we truly had a comprehensive methadone treatment program across the province.

I commend the member for Parkdale for a particular aspect of the resolution, because I know a methadone treatment clinic was opened in his riding in 1992 or 1993 -- and the problem with only having a few treatment centres in the province, one in Parkdale, which is a community that I think at the best of times experiences a bit more difficulty than some of our other communities in the province-and the Addiction Research Foundation I think has space for about 100 addicts. There's a private practice by Dr Shapiro in Metropolitan Toronto, but essentially there are very few places across Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed in the province, where heroin addicts can go for methadone treatment.

I absolutely sympathize and understand when the member for Parkdale talks about those phone calls and conversations he's had with the parents and loved ones of heroin addicts who are extremely frustrated with the six to eight months to one year that they must wait to get into treatment in this province. That's unacceptable.

Indeed, with only having a few treatment centres in Metro, the danger is that you will be concentrating the heroin addiction and those who are addicted to heroin into a few communities only. That could create other problems, particularly when the waiting lists are long. We know that heroin addicts tend to continue to use heroin until they get into the methadone treatment centre, because it is an addiction.

Therefore, while they're on waiting lists they may be tempted to move to Parkdale; they may be tempted to move to those areas where the treatment centres are located, and common sense would dictate that it is not necessarily all that fair for a few communities to be, I would say, burdened with this aspect of our society. It would be fairer, and I think the resolution sets to challenge the government, to open up more centres spread evenly and accessibly across the province for the people of Ontario.

I think one of the pros of this call for a greater expansion of methadone treatment centres is that we keep in mind that to heroin addicts that habit is a $400- to $600-a-day habit, and to finance their drug use some addicts have been known to steal up to $30,000 a week, which is absolutely horrendous.

If we look at the cost of expanding methadone treatment across the province, $7.2 million, we should compare that with the cost of imprisonment. Imprisonment works out to about $50,000 a year for one heroin addict, and if we transpose that against the cost of methadone at $5,500 for that treatment over a one-year period, surely the cost-effectiveness argument alone would persuade the government to move on the expansion of methadone treatment centres.

I do want to talk about the anti-drug secretariat that the member for Parkdale has concentrated on. I and my colleagues in my party are really not all that interested in the bureaucratic side of all this. I think we've spent a lot of time talking about secretariats and setting them up. What we're interested in, in health care services, is front-line services, so perhaps for the rest of this debate we can back off the administrative side and continue to talk about what's important, and that's putting scarce health care dollars into front-line services.

I have some other comments with respect to what the College of Physicians and Surgeons had to say about this. I think they're generally supportive. They outlined for us what the criteria and guidelines are for granting licences now. Rather than fixing on treatment licences, though, they did recommend that the resolution concentrate on what they call maintenance licences and that the resolution continue to concentrate on the network of services which restore addicts' sense of self-worth rather than merely satisfying their heroin addiction with methadone treatment, which is a less potent drug.

I commend the member for Parkdale and will be urging my members to support the resolution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a privilege to get up and speak in the House this morning on this particular issue. It certainly is something that I have had some personal knowledge of in that some of the work I did before I arrived here was in the area of working with troubled youth and developing community approaches to the resolution of such issues as the overconsumption of alcohol and the abuse and use of drugs, both legal and illegal.

I want to commend the member across the way for bringing the subject to the House, to the chamber. It certainly is one that needs to be focused on and addressed in an all-encompassing, significant way. It's good that we focus on that today and get a chance to put some thoughts on the record so that those who are involved in decision-making around this issue will have the benefit of just such thoughts and such notions.

I'm certainly in harmony with the comments and approach of my colleague from Ottawa who spoke earlier and believe that it is a bigger issue than simply a correctional issue or one that belongs in the area of justice or the criminal system. It's a community issue that needs to be addressed in a more holistic, composite way. Certainly as a government we've done some things. However, in a non-partisan way I say we still haven't done enough. There's a lot more to be done.

There are programs out there existing today that are very effective, one of them in my own community, that are doing good things for people, a partnership of community groups responding to a community challenge in a way that is creative and exciting but is not funded to the degree that it should be so that it can actually maximize the potential that it has to really make a difference.

As a government, we have moved, I think, significantly in very fundamental ways to a more comprehensive, holistic approach. We did in fact, as the member across who has brought this issue to the table today said, disband the secretariat, but for reasons that I think are certainly bigger and more important than what he has laid on the table so far. Our feeling is that this is a human services challenge that we face, one of how we use the resources that we have in a human service approach to this in a more comprehensive, holistic way.

When we got here, this secretariat was under the umbrella of the Solicitor General, which very clearly placed it in the area of corrections. We see it as a Health issue, certainly, although we don't agree with the model that the member who has brought this to the table this morning has presented. We see it as a Community and Social Services issue, and we see it as an issue that needs to be grappled with by the community itself, that's above and beyond what we can offer as a provincial government.

We have, through leadership particularly by the Ministry of Health with support from Comsoc, brought in all of the major players and made this a core part of what those ministries do, as opposed to a secretariat out there that is given responsibility but oftentimes no authority or resources or even direction to get the job done.

I wanted to focus for a few minutes this morning on what we in Sault Ste Marie and Algoma are doing at the moment. Certainly the Ministry of Health, through the district health council, announced that there was some money available that became available through the repatriation of OHIP funding. The previous government was spending I believe in the area of $90 million a year to ship our problems to the States, get them fixed and then bring those folks back. That worked in some instances, but in many, many instances it didn't. We are taking that money now and giving it back to communities.

There's been a process ongoing for the last year or so in Algoma and the Sault that saw people from every small community in Algoma, from all the agencies and organizations that have an interest and a concern in this, come together to decide how to spend the money that has been allocated for our area. Indeed, there is now a plan in place. There is an organization identified as the lead agency which will take this forward and make some good things happen for us and for the people of the Sault.

I want to, though, just for a couple of minutes talk a bit about the approach that the Addiction Research Foundation and a group in our community called Breakaway have taken to the resolution of this problem. It certainly isn't one of kicking people in the pants or beating them up or making them feel any worse about themselves than they do in getting into this problem in the first place.

Both Breakaway and the Addiction Research Foundation in our community have very much used a community development approach, have brought all the players together in very creative and exciting ways to respond in, I think, effective ways to the challenge of drug abuse and addiction in our community. Certainly Breakaway, a group of parents and kids themselves who banded together, has provided over the last 10 years for people in Sault Ste Marie and area relief, support and help, basically on the proceeds of car washes and bake sales.

This is an organization that, in my mind, deserves to be supported more directly by our government, and if there is criticism to be made, it's that we haven't been able to get to that to this point.

My hope is that, through this discussion perhaps, instead of the approach the member is suggesting, we might put some resources into supporting groups like the Addiction Research Foundation and Breakaway, in my community particularly.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for Parkdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Ruprecht: First let me thank the member for Simcoe West for essentially supporting this resolution. Just in passing, I thought he might want to know that while the methadone treatment would cost in the neighbourhood of $7,500 per person per year -- if we would agree on that figure -- the saving would be very, very great because the saving would reach into billions of dollars, and I've given those figures before.

I want to thank the member from the Sault for being essentially in agreement with this resolution, although he would like to see some changes take place, which can always be worked out. I have no major problem. Essentially, I thought he said he was in agreement with at least some of the direction of this resolution. He says that we need to address this issue in a holistic way. We don't have any disagreement with that. He says the NDP government sees this from a community and social services perspective. Again he wouldn't find too much disagreement there.

But the issue still remains that there are many people out there who are unable to get treatment, and we've got to do something. The issue of course is, what do we do? That's where we have to have the leadership of the government. We can present resolutions and private members' bills. Anyone who has a smattering of knowledge in terms of the process of this House would know that resolutions and private members' bills do not necessarily get passed although it's a great idea, even with minor amendments or major amendments. It all gets stuck in the House; it all gets stuck in palaver, palaver, palaver. We talk too much about it and we act very little.

The question today is, what shall the actions be of this government? I lay it upon you to come up with some ideas and some resolution so that residents out there in Canada and especially in Toronto and Ontario will get some treatment of methadone.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

Ms Harrington moved private member's notice of motion number 48:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the employment of children under the age of 18 as exotic dancers and strippers is abhorrent to our society; and

Since children abused in this manner may suffer long-term physical and emotional damage; and

Since this practice is widespread across Ontario and Canada; and

Since 1994 is the International Year of the Family and Canada has ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child which ensures the rights of children to survival, development and protection; and

Since it is illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase liquor, cigarettes or rent adult videos; and

Since the government of Ontario is doing all that it can to resolve this matter; and

Since there is a need for a unified approach to dealing with this serious issue to protect communities across Ontario as well as Canada; and

Since

section 5 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct,

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mrs Harrington has moved private member's notice of motion number 48. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): We have certainly all heard the horror stories of teenagers lured from stripping to drugs, prostitution and a life without self-worth and without the ability to makes choices. We can all identify with the Niagara Falls Review as it aptly put the irony: "Fifteen-Year-Olds Strip in Places Where They Can't Be Served Alcohol."

I want to set this issue in the context of our society. In a healthy society, individuals must have rights, freedoms and responsibilities to others. The ability to make choices in our own lives without coercion is key to a healthy democratic society. In order to do this, one must have a sense of identity, self-worth or self-esteem. So often through our history and even today, young women do not develop this sense of worth and identity and the ability to be independent.

There are still many forces working against women in our society. To underline this need for identity, I quote Elizabeth Wolgast, who is quoted in this book, Canadian Feminism and the Law. She says, "Rights work where people are in a position to press for them; for others [rights] give only the caricature of justice."

The years from 14 to 18 are formative years for young women. We must recognize that there are factors in our society besides under-age stripping which subtly or blatantly objectify women and thus hinder their ability to take control of their lives and use their talents and capabilities to the fullest. Under-age stripping may be only one symptom of the deeper problem.

I ask members in this House to look for these forces all around us and think about their effects, not just the obvious, like physical or sexual abuse, but more subtle forces, such as the use of non-gender-neutral language -- even today, women in Niagara Falls are running to be aldermen; forces such as pornography, beauty pageants and even advertising, which pressure young women to conform to unrealistic and limiting stereotypes. We must first be aware of this patriarchy before we can attempt to change it.

So I see this particular action to stop stripping by under-age persons as one way, and only one way, of respecting the rights of young women and men to develop from children to whole and healthy persons capable of fully and equally participating in our democratic society.

Why have I brought this resolution forward today? Last summer, Mr Eric Wood came to my office in Niagara Falls to tell me about his 14-year-old daughter, who was working in one of our local bars, and Mr Wood is here today. Thank you very much for coming.

I also credit the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters for raising the issue again, and persistently. I believe Ms Valerie Smith is here today, and I thank her for coming.

I thank Elizabeth Witmer, MPP for London North, for raising the issue and drafting her private member's bill, and Dianne Poole, MPP for Eglinton, for her sustained work over the years on behalf of young women and the protection of children.

I thank member of council Kim Craitor for his work with Niagara Falls city council to produce a bylaw to license strippers, and also Tony Ricciuto, from the Niagara Falls Review, for his award-winning six-part

article on the issue, and in fact his own personal concern.

In August, I approached the Attorney General's office for what I hoped would be quick action to deal with the situation in Niagara Falls. As it turned out, it was more complex. Officials from five ministries -- the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- all looked at this issue together. They reviewed many pieces of legislation in order to find the most workable solution at the provincial level.

We were determined to do something. We needed something that would really work, work legally, not have loopholes, not something just for show or a Band-Aid solution.

Yesterday, in fact, we moved to change the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act to prohibit strippers under the age of 18. But this applies only in licensed establishments, not private parties or other venues. So provincial changes are only part of this solution, and that is why we're here today.

There must be a three-level approach: municipal, provincial and federal. Municipal bylaws are part of the solution. Ed Philip, our Minister of Municipal Affairs, will circulate next week a model bylaw to help municipalities get involved. Now we must turn to the federal level and together, today, demand that federal Justice Minister Allan Rock amend

section 5 of the Criminal Code. That is why I am asking everyone here today to vote to support this resolution directed to the federal level.

Justice Minister Rock, in his letter of September 22, 1994, to Valerie Smith cites two sections of the Criminal Code,

section 167 and

section 173, and he says the following:

"It may be possible, depending on the circumstances of each case, that these sections of the code can be used to address strip dancing by juveniles.

"Furthermore, children who are excluded from the reaches of the criminal law due to their age could certainly be subject to child welfare and mental health legislation in order to appropriately address their needs and those of the community.

"Provincial laws concerning child labour and liquor licensing might also be resorted to in order to deal with the presence of juveniles in strip bars."

That's his approach, as recently as about a month ago.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm delighted to stand in my place today in support of Ms Harrington's resolution concerning under-age strippers. This is an issue that crosses party boundaries. It's an issue, I think, which should be of interest to every member of this House.

Some people might say: "What's the big deal? It's only a few girls who are working in a strip joint who may not be of legal age, the age of majority, so what's the big deal?" I think any time we have an issue in this Legislature of exploitation of children -- and that's what we're talking about here. We're talking 14- and 15-year-old girls, even 16-year-old girls, and while in some ways they may be approaching adulthood, in many other ways they are still children.

So we're talking about the exploitation of children, and I think that is why there was such a keen interest on the part of all three caucuses to try to do something about this issue.

But I can tell you that I don't think it ever would have received the attention it did or the seriousness of the issue would have been explored as much as it has been if it weren't for the work of two women, Valerie Smith and Pat Herdman, who isn't here today, who belong to the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters.

Members may have heard this group mentioned before. It's a group that was founded a couple of years ago by Valerie and Pat. They receive no government funding and they basically have now devoted a significant portion of their lives to trying to protect our daughters. Although the coalition is called the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, I think we're also talking about something that will be very positive for our sons. For all our children, we should say thank you to them for their work.

This issue first came to my attention in August and it was brought to me by my faithful friends in the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. We have daily correspondence. In fact, sometimes I think Valerie's fax machine must overheat and explode from all the work it does. But when she faxed me the information about the under-age strippers, I was absolutely appalled. I could not believe that in the province of Ontario, where we've always prided ourselves on protecting our children, we didn't have a mechanism in place that would protect them. This was in I think early August when I first got the information, the end of the first week in August.

We contacted the Attorney General's office and were told that in fact there was not anything in place to offer special protection and that the best vehicle to really address this would be the Criminal Code. So on August 18 I wrote to Justice Minister Allan Rock to ask him to explore legislative changes in order to protect these young girls, and the obvious solution would be through the Criminal Code.

In fact, there are a number of amendments we've been pressing for to amend the Criminal Code, one of them being the obscenity provision in the Criminal Code which says that if the violence isn't linked with sex, then it isn't considered obscene. Well, to me, extreme brutal violence is obscene and should not have to be linked with graphic sex in order for it to be declared obscene. I'm sorry, that was a little bit of a tangent, something I personally feel strongly about. But the fact is that the Criminal Code will be opened up to address a number of things over time, so it seemed logical that this would be a good mechanism to open it up.

We did have a response from Allan Rock on this in September, which I would mention and I know my colleague from St George-St David is going to discuss as well.

At the same time as I wrote to the federal minister, I also was concerned to see if there was something we could do in a very immediate sense because, as you know, legislation takes a long time to go through, particularly if they were going to open up the Criminal Code for other matters. Then we would be looking at extensive, lengthy, prolonged hearings, and there should be something immediate that could be done. So I contacted our excellent legislative research facilities here in the Legislative Assembly, and one of the lawyers who works with legislative research was extremely helpful to me, Mr Avrum Fenson.

He did a research paper on the background and what possible vehicles there could be.

We discussed the fact that it appeared that a simple regulatory change to the Liquor Licence Act would in fact solve a major part of the problem. We discussed whether we had to go that extra step and get a legislative amendment, but we felt the simplest, quickest way to try to protect the girls would be through regulatory change through amending the Liquor Licence Act.

In October I had discussed this with Liberal leader Lyn McLeod. As the mother of four daughters, she is particularly concerned with many of these issues of violence and of exploitation of children. She asked me to help develop the regulation, which again legislative research was very helpful with. We passed it through legislative counsel.

Three weeks ago Lyn McLeod wrote a letter to Marilyn Churley and to the Attorney General, Marion Boyd, and asked them, called on them, challenged them, pleaded with them to act in three different areas. One was in the area of under-age strippers. We provided the government with a copy of a regulation which we thought would do the trick, but we also said very clearly in the letter, "This or any similar one." Quite frankly, I didn't care how we solved the problem as long as we solved the problem, so if the government decided another ministry could do it in a better way, that was fine with me.

The two things we asked for were the regulatory change and also very stringent enforcement procedures so that in fact had teeth.

I'm really quite delighted that yesterday the government did take the initiative and that they announced a three-part program to try to solve this problem. The long-term one is to amend the Criminal Code. I do agree with the government on that and I will certainly be pursuing that and adding my voice to theirs.

The second of course is the regulatory change. I haven't seen the exact wording of it so I don't know if it is similar to what we suggested and, quite frankly, I don't care. If the government lawyers are saying that this will solve the problem, that's the important thing.

The third is to work with the municipalities to correct the bylaws.

I am really very pleased to see the government taking this action, and I will give a lot of the credit for that to Mrs Harrington. She's the member for Niagara Falls -- is that right?

Interjection.

Ms Poole: Good. I'll call you your correct title instead of Mrs Harrington. At the same time as I was working on this, at the same time as Ms Witmer was working on this for the Conservative Party, Mrs Harrington, the member for Niagara Falls -- I should learn to use the correct titles -- was working within her caucus to promote change. I think that's a very important message for us: that it is a non-partisan effort. We all had different ideas of how to resolve it, but the important thing was, as individual members, we were doing our best to try to correct a problem.

Mrs Witmer asked a question yesterday in the House about the under-age strippers, and I think she was quite offended that the government had not consulted members of the opposition who had been working on this. Perhaps it would have been better on all sides if we had a more cooperative arrangement.

I just want to say that there was one thing I took exception to and that was that she quoted from a

section that said she had raised it in the media and everybody else got on the bandwagon. Well, I have a copy of my letter of August 18, which I believe was three days before any publicity on the part of the member for Waterloo North. I say this not to take credit, because I know Mrs Harrington was working at the same time, but just to say we don't need to try to all take credit -- well, we can all take credit because everybody had a

part in it, but let's not try to make it partisan, because these issues are too important for us to do that.

I commend the actions of the government and I know there are certain people in this Legislature in the opposition who would probably string me up by my toenails for saying that, but every once in a while we have to give you credit: not too often, but every once in a while.

I'd also like to call on the government members to act with your ministers to ensure that the two other areas that Lyn McLeod has challenged action on, that of dealing with the slasher films and amendments to the Ontario Film Review Board guidelines and also amendments to the Theatres Act, that those come in to try to solve the problem of gratuitous violence in our films and in the material that's reaching our young children and, second, on the serial killer trading cards, which to me are extremely symbolic of the type of violence we're finding -- I challenge the government again today to act on those issues.

I would ask the member for Niagara Falls, now that you have had such a success in this area, to take up those two causes and add your voice to trying to get those solved.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to support the motion that's been put forward by the member for Niagara Falls. I'd like to congratulate her on making sure that this issue is debated the very first week of our return to Parliament. I know that for her, as for Mrs Poole and myself, this has been an issue of utmost concern and certainly I know we're all committed to working on this issue.

I first became aware of the issue of under-age stripping when I read an

article in my own local newspaper, and that was on February 17, 1993. A headline read, "Teen Stripper's Mom Warns Parents." It was a lady in New Hamburg who indicated that she was frustrated by laws that give kids too much freedom and put them in situations where they can be exploited. The

article says:

"The Child and Family Services Act allows a child to decide at age 12 where he or she wants to live, and a 16-year-old who doesn't want to live at home is eligible for student welfare.

"'They (laws) seem to have gone from giving parents full control over their children to giving them none.'"

In the same

article there is a quote by Sergeant Dan Colquhoun of the Waterloo regional police, who says:

"'Strip clubs employing 16- and 17-year-olds as dancers pose serious problems, but it isn't illegal.

"'You can't blame everything that's wrong with kids today on them. It's as much the fault of the system.'"

Then we hear from the London police, detective Lory Moro, because the mother of this 17-year-old girl who had turned to stripping consulted with him and he says:

"'There's nothing in law to stop a father from taking his 12-year-old son into a strip club to watch his 16-year-old daughter strip.

"'Stripping, prostitution, drugs and pornography are all interconnected and controlled by organized crime.'"

We go back to the mother, and she keeps asking the question why nothing can be done. That's the issue that is of so much concern, because I think what was discovered when the issue surfaced on February 17, 1993, when the issue was brought to our attention again by Tony Ricciuto of the Niagara Falls Review, was that indeed in this province girls as young as 14 and 15 were being hired to act as strippers and there was absolutely no provincial or federal legislation that would prohibit that from happening.

I guess because of my own concern for young people -- I've seen what's happened to young people, I was a secondary school teacher, I was a trustee on a school board and of course I am a mother -- this is an issue that concerns me greatly. I decided on August 23, since it didn't appear that the government was taking any action, that obviously in my role as an opposition member I needed to make sure that the public was aware of the issue.

I could assist the government in this way by bringing it to the public's attention and hopefully, as a result of the interest and concern of the public, the government would be placed in a position where it could assist Ms Harrington in putting forward some legislation to deal with the issue.

I wrote to Marion Boyd on August 23 and I asked her to introduce legislation immediately to prohibit young girls from working as strippers. I told her I was concerned that there was no legislation in place, and I think I need to mention that at one time the Juvenile Delinquents Act did have a

section making it an offence to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. However, of course, that was revamped into the Young Offenders Act in 1984 and that

section was removed and nothing adequate replaced it.

Also, at the provincial level at one time, children under the legal drinking age could not work in a licensed establishment. Again, that provision was removed and nothing else put in its place. Unfortunately, legislators at all levels have been negligent in addressing the issues that we have brought before them.

I said in my letter to the Attorney General that I felt the situation had become even more serious in recent years and recent months because there had been the court decision which ruled that strippers could now engage in lap dancing and other specific sexual acts with their customers.

I think, if you listen to people who have at first hand experienced what does go on regarding lap dancing, it's the next thing to prostitution. It's simply not done in that context, and personally I am appalled that 14- and 15-year-old girls would be so vulnerable and would be exploited in this way.

I indicated to Mrs Boyd that I wished her to take action because I did not wish for our young children to continue to be exploited in this manner. I think we recognize the vulnerability of children, particularly of girls at that age. Oftentimes their self-esteem is not what it should be, so they're also making decisions where they really don't have knowledge of all that can be involved. They're not giving informed consent, and what happens is that they are young girls who are often lured by the promise of easy money -- $1,500 a week. It seem like a glamorous life.

I told her that this exploitation must stop and that I believe that a provincial law could effectively deal with the situation, recognizing of course that action needed to be taken as well by the federal government. However, we can't force the federal government to take action. We can only do what needs to be done within this House.

The interesting phenomenon that I discovered as well is that we didn't seem to be so concerned about under-age stripping but at the same time we have legislation in this province that prohibits people from smoking under the age of 19; they can't buy lottery tickets under the age of 18; they can't perform in pornographic movies under the age of 18. Somehow we have been very negligent because we have allowed girls to be engaged in that particular occupation.

The government did bring in some legislation yesterday.

I just want to briefly say that stripping is demoralizing, and it has been pointed out again in this recent

article that, as the member for Eglinton has indicated, the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, Pat Herdman and Valerie Smith, I think, have been keeping all of us well informed on the issue.

This was an

article I just received from the Barrie Advance, indicating that there is a former stripper there who earned her living for 18 months, but after being sexually assaulted twice, feeling degraded and getting a sense of alienation by society, she has now quit. She says, "Stripping is very damaging to girls," and goes on to say, "Pornography contributes to sex crimes," and of course she says, "Strip bars are very much a part of it."

I guess that's something that I need to point out. When this was raised to the level of public attention after my open letter to Marion Boyd on August 23, I was amazed at the response I received. I heard not only from mothers and fathers whose children, girls, had left home and become involved in stripping. They realized that their hands were tied and that the hands of the police were tied. There was no way they could prohibit this from happening. They were very concerned about the safety of their daughters.

I also heard from people who actually own these establishments, who again were asking for legislation to prevent people from stripping if they were under age. I heard from booking agents who were looking for some sort of a licensing system. I heard from police officers. I heard from under-age strippers and I heard from strippers who were just a little bit older.

It appeared that everybody across this province was aware that there was a problem -- no

part is exempt -- and people were looking for very decisive action from this government. Yesterday the government did bring in some legislation dealing with this issue, and I guess I see the effort yesterday as the first part of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, as the member for Niagara Falls has pointed out, this covers only licensed establishments. It doesn't cover the private parties, the stag parties etc, and so girls will still be able to be employed in that particular area.

The other concern I raised yesterday is with the enforcement. I was very disappointed to learn yesterday that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had no answer as to how this new regulation would be enforced. Are we going to hire new liquor licence inspectors to make sure the liquor licence regulations are not being breached, and what type of new power are we going to give these individuals to do the job effectively?

The minister actually indicated, on October 19 in the Toronto Star: "'The Liquor Licence Act generally does not deal with entertainment standards and it would be opening a door to that,' she said. 'Generally it regulates the sale of alcohol.'"

So I guess we have a regulation, it looks good on paper, it indicates the concern of the government, but I'm very concerned that it could be no more than window dressing if there are not some very effective enforcement measures put in place. I would encourage the government to go ahead and demonstrate to us how serious they are and indeed put in place for us an enforcement mechanism that does work.

I'm also very concerned because, as the member for Niagara Falls has indicated, Mr Rock, in his response to the letter from Valerie Smith, indicated that there were possibilities of action, but he certainly didn't indicate that he was going to take any action. I think it's incumbent upon all of us in this House to make sure that we do encourage the federal government to take some action, because the provincial government cannot do it alone. That's my only concern about the resolution. We're calling upon them to give us help.

We can't force them to become involved in the issue, but I'll tell you, we need to put pressure on them, because children under the age of 18, particularly girls, are being exploited in this province at the present time.

However, during the entire time period that all this activity has been taking place -- the media coverage, the work by members in all parties -- I had taken a look at how we could introduce legislation and we'd taken a look at the regulation, similar to what was introduced, but we recognized that perhaps it could not be enforced by the liquor licence inspectors and we were also concerned that that type of regulation did not cover private parties.

So yesterday I introduced a private member's bill entitled the Adult Entertainment Licensing Act, 1994, and what this legislation in essence does is that it will require those individuals who perform as strippers, or anyone who employs strippers, or anyone who arranges for strippers to be employed at private parties, to obtain a licence. This licence could not be obtained unless you were able to provide the appropriate pieces of identification and photo ID, and it would not be available to anyone under the age of 18.

Moreover, I'm concerned about enforcement. It's fine to have rules and regulations, and we find out now that these after-hours clubs are illegal to begin with. We have a law; they shouldn't be there, but nobody's enforcing the law. In my private member's bill, we do confer powers of search without warrant on police officers who believe on reasonable grounds that a person does not hold the required licence.

I believe that is important, because obviously action needs to happen immediately, and that's why I'm concerned about the liquor licence inspector doing the work of enforcement. Let's face it, these girls do move around, and if you suspect one day that something's happening that shouldn't, by the time the inspector arrives the next day obviously the individual has long disappeared.

We believe that this piece of legislation would supplement and enhance what is being suggested by the government. Certainly it would support what is being done here today by the member for Niagara Falls, because, I'll tell you, if we don't all band together, this type of behaviour will continue, these females will continue to be degraded, and certainly many of them end up with emotional problems and physical problems as well. But we will support the bill before us today.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I would like to thank the member for Halton North for the opportunity to speak. I do want to speak in favour of the resolution and to note the degree of solidarity among all parties on this issue. I think it's a sign of what can happen positively when we work together in this House. The member for Eglinton, the member for Niagara Falls, who has introduced the resolution today, the member for Waterloo North and my leader, Lyn McLeod, have all called for efforts in this regard as a result of this coming to public light in recent times, and we now have some action from the government on this issue.

I did want to talk a bit about a couple of concerns I have. I represent a downtown Toronto riding and I see some of the people who end up working, unfortunately, in the stripping clubs, who are also out on the streets, who can often be addicted to drugs, who often can be involved in some of the unfortunate activities that are involved in living on the street. I think anything we can do in addition to a penal sanction that gets them out of these kinds of institutions but that can also help them get off the streets, get off drugs, get into a productive life, would be a helpful thing.

There are other things we can do in addition in the province. I know there has been a move in the last few days by the government to deal with this under the Liquor Licence Act, but I think there may be a possibility as well to look at child labour legislation and whether there may be a possibility of enforcement in that regard.

My concern, related to a Criminal Code route as what we rely on solely, comes in two perspectives. That's not to say it's inappropriate to pursue it, but I don't think we can rely on it.

I was listening to the member for Waterloo North in recommending her approach for a power for search without warrant. My problem with that is simply resources. Police, for example, in my community no longer even respond to theft calls. There needs to be violence associated with a theft, therefore a robbery, before they're called. They're 795 officers short. I just don't think we'll get an enforcement. They have too many things to do to be actively involved in policing that kind of activity. So it may end up that we have the law on the books without enforcement.

In addition, my concern relates to the standard we might set in a Criminal Code context, because then it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect any federal law would require the owner of the premises to knowingly hire someone under 18. So someone coming with a false ID would result in the owner of the premises being acquitted,

whereas if we went through a liquor licence, which the government is doing, or a child labour process, we can do it on what's called a balance of probabilities. The mere fact of employment could be sufficient to put the licence in trouble or to get them in trouble with an employment standards officer. So there are I think other things we can do provincially.

Finally, in the last few seconds I have left, I know there are provisions in the Criminal Code already that we could look at. Maybe the Attorney General could do that.

Section 167 of the code might provide an opportunity for prosecution. I think we could argue that it would be more obscene for a young person to be a stripper than an older person.

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you.

Mr Murphy: I thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to supporting the resolution.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to rise in support of my colleague from Niagara South's resolution this morning dealing with the issue of under-age strippers in some of the strip bars, and indeed very pleased to see it has developed into a non-partisan issue among all parties. I'm also very pleased to say that our government has responded to some of the concerns raised by some of the members opposite, indeed to the concerns raised by the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. I know Valerie Smith is here in the gallery today. I'm very pleased she is here. I'm very pleased about the kind words she wrote in a letter to the minister dated yesterday as well.

As you know, our minister announced what we believe is a comprehensive approach to begin to deal with this problem of under-age strippers in licensed establishments. There are three approaches we are taking on this particular issue. For example, the first issue is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has developed a regulation under the Liquor Licence Act that will basically prohibit strippers under the age of 18 from performing in licensed establishments. That's done under paragraph 62(1)4 of the particular act.

It will be a condition of the licence of that establishment which sells liquor and serves liquor that it will not include exotic dancing by persons under the age of 18.

Also, the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be working with the municipalities to encourage them to respond to local issues by using their bylaw authority. I believe and our ministry believes it's one of the most effective ways of doing it. Basically, under the Municipal Act, for example,

section 225 of the Municipal Act does give municipalities permission to regulate adult entertainment parlours, including the power to prohibit entry by a person under 18 in these premises.

Several municipalities have a bylaw like that right now, I believe some five municipalities, including the city of Toronto, the city of St Catharines, the city of Hamilton, the city of Windsor, and the city of Oshawa. But more or less they just regulate where these premises should be, except for the city of Windsor, which actually says that persons under 18 can't perform in entertainment parlours. The city of Windsor actually is the only municipality in the province that does that.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be working with the municipalities to develop, and we will be developing, a model bylaw to help the municipalities to deal with that issue.

The other approach that we're taking as well is encouraging the federal government to amend its Criminal Code to prohibit under-age strippers operating as well. We believe this is another effective way, and also maybe while they're at it they can deal with the whole question of sexual violence and looking at amending the Criminal Code to deal with the whole question of slasher films and those violent cards as well. We believe that's the correct approach to take.

I'm very encouraged, again, to recognize that in fact this is basically a non-partisan issue and all parties have got together to try and solve this problem. I'm encouraged by that. I believe the route that we've chosen as a government demonstrates this government's commitment to act swiftly to protect young women from sexual exploitation. We're also going to attempt to institute broad standards across this province and hopefully we will encourage the federal government to do the same, not only in this province, to adopt a broad standard across Canada.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): It was very interesting to hear the member for Eglinton and the member for Waterloo North and the member for Niagara Falls talk about their involvement in this issue from August and how involved they had been over this issue.

I must tell you that when Mrs Harrington's legislative assistant came to me and said, "We'd like you to consider debating this issue," I said to her: "Well, you know, I really haven't looked into it in great detail. I've been doing other things in my riding. I'm on committees for long-term care. I'm looking at other things and I'm not sure I could talk for a great deal of time or have the research behind me." Then I spent 20 minutes in the hall talking to her about how I felt about this issue. She looked at me with a smile and said, "It seems to me, Karen, you do have a lot to say about this issue," and so I kind of smiled and said, "You know, you're right."

So I'd like to look at it from a different way. Similar to other people in the Legislature, I come from a teaching profession. I served as a trustee on the board of education. I came from the guiding and scouting movement, dealing with young people, PTA, and helping in the schools. But I think the one thing that gives me the most angst over this type of situation, as a mother of a young woman now, and my daughter's now 21, but as a mother of a teenage girl and raising her, is to know how difficult that is for parents.

It's not easy as a parent to raise a teenager. It's very difficult. No matter what kind of a background we come from, no matter how our family is organized, no matter whether it's a professional or a working background, no matter whether it's a single- or a two-parent home, it doesn't matter whether you make $100,000 or you make $20,000, it doesn't matter because it's still a difficult job, and there are problems in all families in raising teenagers. That's because they are going through a very difficult time at 14 and 15 and 16 and, yes, 17.

It's a time when they want to have a sense of worth, when they're building their own self-identity, when they are trying to say, "Don't help me any more, I want to do this on my own," and yet they still look over their shoulder to be sure you're there to help them through some of those difficult times.

There's peer pressures, there's changes in their body, there's changes in their emotions, and they do need guidance. I firmly believe my 21-year-old needs guidance. I still call my mom, who still tells me what to do sometimes and gives me the benefit of her experience, and I think that's important.

These people are dealing with so many pressures out there and there are people ready to prey on them in our world today. That money looks really good. If there are problems at home and they decide they want to leave the family home for whatever reason and they go out into the street, they find it's not easy out there, and that money being offered to them to do that stripping looks very good to them. It's something that they have in their pocket and they can live on their own and do their own thing and there are enough people telling them: "This isn't really bad. It's no big deal."

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Those people are vultures.

Mrs Haslam: That's right. There are people out there who will prey on these young people, who will exploit these young people, who will abuse that relationship with these young people.

So I really want to commend all of the members who spoke today, and in particular the member for Niagara Falls, Mrs Harrington, for taking this issue forward, for being diligent in what she has been trying to do, for visiting and working with members of the opposition party, for banging on the doors of our own ministries and saying, "What can we do together to try to solve this situation?"

I agree with her. I looked at some of the constitutional law issues around it, and if you take a look at the Criminal Code -- awfully dry reading -- in all of that you'd think there would be something we could do for these young people, and there isn't. The best we can do is say it's a complex issue, we're going to do our best to try to solve it at a provincial level, but at least we're looking at working together with other levels of government.

So I commend Mrs Harrington for bringing forward this resolution. This isn't

an act. This isn't a bill. It's merely her way of saying to us and to other levels of government -- it's a resolution. We're asking the federal government to get involved.

We have opposition members involved, we have government members involved, both sexes, both sides of the House. We have the minister who has come forward with the best she can do at this time looking at liquor licences. We have another private member's bill trying that avenue to look at this issue. It's only through that type of cooperation that we're going to be able to help these young women, because they really need somebody out there to protect them. Sometimes we need to remember that government has to get involved to help these vulnerable people, to help these young people.

So I of course will be supporting this resolution, and I am so pleased to see so many other people are going to support it also.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm pleased to join in the debate this morning and I commend and support the member for Niagara Falls for bringing this issue forward.

I first became involved back in 1993. The member for Waterloo North spoke about the newspaper

article that was published in February. It was from my riding. A constituent phoned me and was really distraught about her daughter who had gone to London and had started performing in one of the bars there. It seems like there was a bit of a hassle there, so she had moved out and gone down to the Niagara Peninsula and started performing.

I did contact this woman and I contacted the minister, and at that time we got a fairly simplistic answer, which was, "Let the municipalities deal with it because they're the ones who license the establishments."

In contacting the police officer who was involved in the whole situation, I found out that there was basically no law to cover these young children. So I started working with the minister and I started working with the member for Waterloo North and we kept each other informed of what we were doing, and I commend her for bringing forward a bill which will try to address this problem in a different way. Right now it seems like we've got everybody working together because we realize there is a major problem out there.

I know now that I'm with the Ministry of Labour I've been getting some letters from some of the exotic dancers who have been complaining about the conditions that they have to work under, especially with the advent of lap dancing now. I know a lot of people that run the establishments are credible businessmen, and I've met a few of them who came to the Ontario Restaurant Association when it was lobbying the provincial government on video lottery terminals, and they talked about how they protected their dancers. Basically, there's no touching.

What some of the dancers told me in their letters and in contact with them is that while there is no touching involved in these establishments, a lot of times they're in the position where a client, because of alcohol consumption, will start touching them. There's a great fear among them that they could catch a disease or they could actually get molested. So while they're saying no and the establishment is saying no, there are a lot of customers that are taking advantage of these dancers because of the situation they're in.

While you can understand that certain adults make the decision that they want to become an exotic dancer -- and some of them are quite legitimate; they say they can make $500 a day. If they're looking at tuition fees and they're trying to find a way of getting themselves through college or university, they say, "Well, this is something I could do for two or three years and get myself through college." So quite legitimately they're in the business. But the point is, should our children, anybody under 18, be exposed to this? We're all saying no. I think we've got all-party agreement here that we're saying, "No, this isn't really the way to go."

I was really getting frustrated after a year and a half when I didn't see anything happening, so I'm glad to see that something is happening right now. I understand, with the notes, we've got the Attorney General involved, we've got the Ministry of Municipal Affairs involved, the Ministry of Labour is involved and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and now we're going and trying to approach the federal government to get it involved too so we can actually get something done.

I know some people have said to the Ministry of Labour that it could find a rule. Well, this comes under the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which provides that a minimum age of a worker in a workplace other than a factory is 14 years. A person who is working as a stripper in a bar would only be in violation of this provision if he or she was under the age of 14. I know they've talked about making regulation changes under the act, but then you would question whether it would be legally valid under the act. So there's a problem we've had to deal with, and that's something we've all had to wrestle with.

I know myself I've got a 13-year-old daughter, and I wouldn't want her to end up in this. We know the financial constraints that the children's aid societies are under right now, and with their limits they're actually having trouble taking people out of really dangerous situations. So to take somebody out of a situation where they're out dancing on their own, unless they're saying there's a major problem, we can't do it through the children's aid society. So it's great that we're getting a three-pronged approach through the ministry and we have all parties here working. Finally we'll get some results, I believe.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Harrington: I have to once again thank Ms Poole and Ms Witmer for their involvement in this issue, because very often, even on the government side, things seem to be very slow and frustrating and we have to have that kind of pressure, and sometimes the opposition can help us with that pressure to make things happen. I usually think things are very straightforward and I want an immediate solution -- I know my staff know about this -- and I'd like things to be done quickly. But in some cases one has to go through the various channels and make sure it is done right. This is what we have done in this case. Now we have to carry it forward.

I want to mention Tony Ricciuto from the Niagara Falls Review because he had asked me publicly last September if I would go to a strip club with him to see if I believed that this was actually happening. I said I would, but that's cheap publicity. I know I could make good press that way, but I am determined not to go until something has happened here within this government.

To the points that were raised by the opposition: first of all, that this must be enforced by our liquor licence inspectors --

Interjection.

Ms Harrington: -- yes, obviously that is the case. We are putting another burden on them, and we must ensure that yes, that job is in fact done. I would ask our ministries to look at the suggestions that have been brought forward by the member for Waterloo North, and from the member for St George-St David, who indicated different suggestions as well.

The city of Niagara Falls has been struggling with this issue. First of all, last week, it says here, "Teen worked as stripper, police find." They had to investigate to see whether it was the case that this young woman was under age, and the police have said, "Yes, this is true." Now that we have established that fact, city council, as this headline indicates, is now trying to pull the licence of that particular bar. So things are moving.

I want to just conclude by saying, under-age stripping is, I believe, only one symptom of an underlying problem and that is that we do in many cases limit and stereotype our young women, and I ask members to look at that issue also.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

DRUG DEPENDENCY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 67, standing in the name of Mr Ruprecht. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Ruprecht has moved private member's notice of motion number 50. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

ADULT ENTERTAINMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 68, standing in the name of Ms Harrington. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Harrington has moved private member's notice of motion number 48. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE CHIEF

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to extend the congratulations of my leader, Lyn McLeod, the Liberal Party and myself, the Solicitor General critic, to the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, David Boothby.

I've had a chance to meet with the chief designate, Deputy Chief Boothby, and to work with him, and I know he will be a great addition as chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. He is a strong believer in community policing and he is a great leader, well respected as the head of detective command currently.

I've had an opportunity to overlap with him to a certain degree in things I've done with the police in my riding, the community witness program and the active foot patrol, which has been very effective and very well liked in the community, and I know that chief-designate Boothby is a strong supporter of this.

He is, of course, a 27-year veteran of the force, lives in Metropolitan Toronto, is married and in fact has two children who are also active in the police force. So he has a personal history of dedication to quality policing in this city, which I think is much to be credited.

He obviously becomes chief in a difficult environment, but I think it bodes very well for his term as chief that he managed to be the consensus choice of a group as diverse as the current police services board. So our congratulations to him.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have supported the wider use of domestic production of fuel ethanol for some 10 years. I view the recent flip-flop of the Liberal Party with some amusement and a bit of suspicion.

I can remember when, in early 1989, the Peterson cabinet, without announcements, enacted regulations to the Gasoline Handling Act to effectively prevent the use of fuel ethanol in this province. It was only after our party and our Environment critic at the time, the member for Mississauga South, raised the issue in the Legislature that the Liberals were forced to retreat on the issue.

I remember pointing out in 1989 to the Minister of the Environment at that time that the use of oxygenated fuels such as ethanol would improve air quality in large urban areas. The response by the minister at the time, the member for St Catharines, made it clear that the Liberals had no intention of acting seriously.

I can remember that in the spring of 1990, when I wrote to the Minister of Energy to argue that fuel ethanol could provide environmental benefits compatible with the Liberal government's global warming position, Lyn McLeod then wrote back to me, stating that neither she nor the Liberal government considered ethanol to be viable as an important component of Ontario gasoline.

I can remember that in 1989 the member for Algoma, in his critic's role, asked the current leader of the Liberal Party when she would begin supporting an ethanol initiative. There was no commitment then and, in spite of the flip-flop, I believe there is no commitment now.

MARDI COLLINS

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to a woman who has devoted the last 22 years of her life to serving the people of Pelham. Mayor Mardi Collins is retiring from politics after six years as mayor and 16 as public school board trustee, and she will be missed.

I'll always remember Mardi for her straight-shooting, folksy style of politics. I certainly know her well; I'm one of her constituents. If I ever wanted an answer from Mardi on any question or concern, she'd give it to me right away, even if it wasn't what I was hoping for.

Mardi had no qualms about telling people to start taking some responsibility for their lives, and she didn't mince her words getting the message across. Just last month she told a particularly troublesome constituent to "go get a life." This person had been bothering the mayor for years about the same issue.

Most of all, the people of Pelham will remember Mardi as a mayor who got things done. Since taking the helm after a landslide victory in 1988, Mardi Collins has updated the town's archaic procedural bylaw, restructured council's committee system, streamlined municipal operations, developed personal policy manuals for all staff, launched the first employee performance evaluations and put to rest the costly idea of building a new town hall by launching a three-year project to renovate the existing building. She also deserves praise for balancing the town's budget for three years running, all without raising taxes.

I personally admire Mardi's ability to run the town like a business, one that offers excellent, efficient service at a fair and reasonable price. I would like to congratulate Mardi Collins on a job well done and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavours.

COURT RULING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On October 1, a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada sent shock waves across the country. For the first time, extreme drunkenness could be used as a defence against rape. I think Liberal leader Lyn McLeod best expressed the outrage we all felt when she said, "There is no defence for rape, and there's no defence for this decision."

The tragic implications of this ruling are already being felt. Only one month after the Supreme Court landmark decision, it has already been used as a precedent in another case. A judge in Alberta has cited the Supreme Court judgement as the basis for his ruling on a wife assault charge. He ruled that because the accused had been extremely drunk he was not responsible for the attack, and a very serious charge was thrown out.

Lyn McLeod has written to federal Justice minister Allan Rock to voice the need for urgent and strong action. We have offered Mr Rock our complete support for his decision to launch an immediate review of the Supreme Court's disturbing ruling. We have urged the minister to move forward as quickly as possible to complete it and to take any actions necessary.

There aren't many issues in this House that transcend partisan politics, but this is one of them. We must all raise our voices to ensure that women in this country are not subjected to the final travesty: to see their accused get off scot-free because drunkenness became more acceptable than responsibility.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Premier and his Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Premier, the conflicting signals you and your ministers are sending to the people of Ontario reinforce the perception that the lights are on in your government offices but nobody's home.

When asked if potential purchasers of rail lines Canadian National wants to abandon could get exemptions from part of your draconian labour laws, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told a meeting of the Simcoe County Rail Retention Committee that her government had no intention of giving any legislative relief because she doesn't believe it's necessary. The minister's statement was confirmed by Simcoe county warden Bob Drury and the Simcoe North MP, who attended that meeting.

At about the same time the minister was telling the committee that her government is not going to change the legislation which would require the transfer of all collective agreements if CN were to sell its rolling stock and rail lines, the Premier was telling an Orillia daily newspaper something completely different.

Premier, you said nothing had been ruled out. You said you are determined to find a solution and that you will find a solution.

You said, "I've asked the minister to talk to people and make sure that whatever we do is practical, to make sure we're protecting jobs and providing the flexibility we need in the face of these federal cutbacks."

Premier, judging by your minister's response, I expect you have not bothered to talk to her about this extremely important issue, or perhaps she's just not listening to you.

TRIBUTES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Two weeks ago tonight, just before 7:30 pm, two men wearing balaclavas burst into the Bank of Montreal in the Port Perry Plaza in my riding, armed with a handgun and a high-powered automatic rifle. The bank manager, Mr Alan Knight, was shot in the leg and the robbers left the bank with a sack of money.

Outside the bank, Durham Regional Police constables Warren Ellis and Mark McConkey and detective Paul Mooy were all shot in a burst of gunfire that also went through a window across the street, injuring realtor Debra-Ann Taylor.

The robbers escaped, holding 74-year-old Marjorie Pearce hostage for a short time before forcing her husband, Harry, to drive them to the Memorial Hospital, where they took another car to escape. By the middle of the next morning, Friday, two suspects had been arrested in Kingston.

This brutal armed robbery has boldly highlighted the outstandingly good qualities of many of the people who live and serve in the community of Port Perry.

Today I want to ask this House and those listening to recognize and to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Durham regional police; the professionalism of the ambulance and hospital staff in Port Perry; the assistance of the taxi driver, Archie Ewing Jr, who drove injured Constable McConkey to the hospital; the concern and cooperation of witnesses such as Fred Canning and Gail and Hank Verwoerd.

Finally, I want to commend the willingness of hundreds of local residents who provided information to the investigators that led to the prompt arrest of the suspects.

RAE DAYS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): As Environment critic for the Liberal Party, I was intrigued by the story Thomas Walkom tells in his new book about the NDP government's abysmal failure to deal with the garbage crisis in the greater Toronto area.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the Interim Waste Authority is the brainchild of the former Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, and, as the book describes, is a major reason Ruth is no longer Minister of the Environment.

It seems that Bob Rae knew the political and environmental ramifications of Grier's actions, and a cabinet shuffle would provide the perfect opportunity to reverse her foolhardy decisions. All Rae had to do was get Grier out of the way.

Apparently, when Ruth Grier was informed that the Premier was deposing her as Minister of the Environment, she burst into tears and made the Premier promise not to ship Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake and not to dismantle the IWA.

What's a Premier to do? The only reason for the move in the first place was to reverse Grier's politically unsaleable policy. On the other hand, Ruth Grier, who has supported him through thick and thin, was in tears.

Later the same day, Bud Wildman, the new Minister of Environment and Energy, popped in on the Premier at his house to discuss the best way to undo Grier's damage.

Wildman started by telling the Premier how happy he was that the government would now be able to send Toronto's garbage to Kirkland Lake and dismantle that money pit, the Interim Waste Authority. The Premier looked embarrassed and informed Wildman that the plan had changed. The albatross was now around Wildman's neck. Ontarians were stuck with Grier's idiotic plan. Taxpayers, farmers and land owners across the greater Toronto area are now the ones left crying.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Restart the clock, please.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to update the Minister of Environment and Energy and members of this House about how his Environmental Commissioner has assisted myself and my colleague the member for Mississauga South with our request to review the proposed development on the Toronto Islands by the Flying Toad co-op. As you will remember, these 100 units would involve destroying significant wet meadows, dunes and an eastern cottonwood woodland. The Flying Toad development would destroy the last remaining shoreline habitat remaining on the western side of Lake Ontario.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has told me that these natural areas have been recognized by various levels of government. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has designated these lands as an environmentally significant area. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has identified these same lands as regionally significant areas of natural and scientific interest. The Crombie commission has recommended their full protection.

We have written the recently appointed Environmental Commissioner to formally ask that she look into the Flying Toad co-op proposal and do everything in her power to stop any development on these lands. The Environmental Commissioner wrote us back this past August, saying that she would be unable to look at our request until 1998.

Tell me: What use is that when the building will be up, the people moved in and the wetlands destroyed? Your Environmental Commissioner's office is a sham, and your promise to protect the environment a fraud.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to comment on the positive feedback I've received from my constituents on the accomplishments of this government. I'd like to speak briefly about some great things that are happening in the borough of East York.

Perhaps one of the projects I am most proud of is the preservation and protection of the site of the Don Valley brickworks, a part of East York's historical, ecological and geological heritage that will make the Todmorden Mills area an attractive tourist destination. Money for this project has been allocated through the Jobs Ontario Capital program. Jobs Ontario Community Action has provided funding for the renovating of the East York Community Theatre, the first fully accessible, multi-use community theatre and auditorium in my riding.

A new non-profit child care centre will be on the grounds of the East York Civic Centre. The cost for the construction of this centre will be provided by the NDP government. Winpak Technologies has benefited from a $1.7-million loan from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. A partnership with the government and business has been created, resulting in the saving of 245 jobs in my riding.

The various components of Jobs Ontario created more than 145,000 jobs last year. This year, these initiatives will create more than 166,000 jobs. Jobs Ontario Training is the most successful job creation and training program in Canada, and East York has benefited from this initiative by being one of the homes of a Metro Jobs Ontario sub-broker, Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office. As well, local companies such as Allweather Canvas Products, Robetech Institute and Acrontech have utilized --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Malkowski: Mr Speaker, I would just like to say that my constituents have told me that the plan in fact is working.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and indeed to our country, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Manoranjan Bhakta, member of the lower House of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, in India. He's accompanied by Mr Sharma, the consul of India to Toronto. Welcome.

Also seated in the Speaker's gallery, I would like you to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, and to our country, Dame Peggy Fenner, member of Parliament, and Mr Colin Pickthall, member of Parliament, the House of Commons, United Kingdom. They're accompanied by Mr William Petten, the Senate of Canada, and staff of the British consulate. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUSINESS REGISTRATION

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Later today, I will be introducing for first reading the Business Regulation Reform Act. This new bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business. Entrepreneurs' concerns about the time and the expense required to launch a business in Ontario have been listened to by this government.

The small business community identified red tape as one of the major barriers to the establishment of new enterprises. We responded by launching a government-wide initiative called Clearing the Path for Business Success. Simply put, Clearing the Path is dedicated to simplifying and streamlining the existing registration and reporting processes for businesses in Ontario.

As many of you already know, the government improved registration processes in September with Ontario business registration access, part of the Clearing the Path initiative.

Starting this September, self-help computer workstations are being introduced in 15 business self-help and land registry offices throughout Ontario. Entrepreneurs can electronically complete up to four of the most commonly required registration forms for an unincorporated business startup.

Entrepreneurs unable to visit a workstation can still save time by calling the special toll-free business registration access help line to order a free business registration kit. The kit contains up to four of the same application forms supported at the workstation. The help line also provides general information about business startup registration and the status of any registration application submitted at a computer workstation or mailed to Ontario business registration access.

To date, response from small business owners has been very positive. Business people now have to spend less time and effort registering their enterprise in Ontario. That means they can get down to the important task of running their businesses.

Improvements to the business registration access program are planned as soon as next spring. An additional 35 workstations will be introduced to Ontario communities. All workstations will accept credit cards, and business people will be able to conduct their own business name searches. And rest assured that although exact locations have not been determined at this point, we are very conscious of the need to service the north.

However, to provide optimum service to the business community, we need new legislation in place to achieve future Clearing the Path services.

For example, unified reporting will make it possible for businesses to receive consolidated monthly account statements and remit taxes in a single payment. This service will be introduced in September 1995 for retail sales tax and employer health tax payments. Ground-breaking improvements will also include electronic business registration and the use of a combined registration form to replace four individual applications.

New business registrants will also be given the federal single business number. This will help them deal more efficiently with both the provincial and federal governments.

The Business Regulation Reform Act will overcome hurdles in specific program legislation. It will allow the government to change the old requirement for paper forms and signatures, thus paving the way for electronic registration. It will also provide the authority for registration and reporting service expansion. The Clearing the Path initiative will grow and support additional business licences. These could include other provincial, federal and ultimately municipal registrations.

The adoption of this bill will significantly help government clear its own path. It will avoid the time-consuming need to amend numerous acts as new programs are added to the Clearing the Path initiative. It is an important step towards re-engineering the business registration and reporting processes in Ontario. It's also an example of the government's commitment to streamline all of its operations and procedures.

I believe it is imperative that we continue to improve the overall business-government relationship. We can't stop now or slow down our momentum. The Business Regulation Reform Act will allow continuous registration and reporting improvements and ensure more efficient government service to businesses in Ontario. I urge all members to support the bill when I introduce it later today for first reading.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, we've had some special guests arrive, and I'd like to seek the consent of the House to stand down the rest of ministers' statements while we move to what I think was an agreed set of events.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I believe you will be doing the appropriate introductions shortly, but I believe we have unanimous consent to welcome the Nobel laureates who are present here today in the gallery.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

NOBEL LAUREATES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before members have an opportunity to say a few words I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a very special and distinguished international group of Nobel laureates to the assembly and welcome them to both the assembly and, in many cases,