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

October 22, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOI CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

Mr Owens moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la

Loi sur les accidents du travail

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I may not utilize the entire 10 minutes, as this is a very simple issue that addresses some acute problems that workers who are parents and workers who are injured have been facing since time immemorial. The themes I want to address today are that the provision of good maternity leave benefits is good for business, that fairness and equality are good for business and that justice for injured workers is also good for business.

Section 1 of my bill addresses the issue of the amendment to the Employment Standards Act. What this bill will do is provide for the accrual of credit for the purposes of vacation time and sick time while parents are off on their maternity or parental leave or workers are on workers' compensation. Again, the issue of extending benefits to these people on maternity leave and/or workers' compensation is an issue of fairness and equality. The first part of my bill will deal with persons on maternity leave.

As a society we have an obligation to allow workers to fully assume the dual responsibilities as workers and as parents. Children are our future, and we need to provide as much support and assistance as possible to allow their parents to care for them in their early years.

When one looks at the amount of time that would actually be accumulated during a maternity or parental leave, we're not talking about a great deal of time in terms of numbers, but those parents who have taken the time from their jobs during the initial stages need to have the feeling of security that they're going to be able to come back to the workplace again and enjoy the fruits of their labours in terms of their vacation. In many collective agreements we're talking about fractions of days. In many non-unionized workplaces we again are talking about fractions of days in terms of the accumulations.

We hear a lot of discussion about family values, and in some versions of family values that are discussed is a version with two parents. In many cases, this is not the case in 1992. Many parents do not have a choice when it comes to working outside the home. This is not a case of parents wanting it all. It's clearly a case of survival. We should be adapting our laws and our legislation to suit the changing family in society. Again, we need to support the family in any way we can.

Our government, through the Minister of Labour, last year took steps to introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act which will allow maternity leave benefits to accrue seniority. This bill is designed to expand on that premise by allowing parents to accrue their vacation and sick leave benefits while they're away. It's fair, it's equal and it sends a clear message to parents, and especially to new parents, that it's not acceptable to have parents penalized for having children. In fact, it will show that they're a valuable asset to our society and that they should be treasured, not punished.

While this amendment is certainly significant, it is by no means radical. Currently in Ontario, while we have a reasonable level of benefits, which again we have improved through amendments to the Employment Standards Act, it's still not as comprehensive as some plans in other countries. Countries such as Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Austria and Denmark mandate that working women be paid at least 90% of their wages for 14 weeks or more. Again by example, in France employees continue to be entitled to work-related social benefits. Providing maternity leave benefits again is good business.

Better productivity and higher morale are the rewards for the business that will allow for substantial family leave plans. In fact, allowing working parents flexibility on maternity benefits is more than just good business; it's an investment in our future.

The second part of my bill deals with workers' compensation. Currently, injured workers are now penalized twice: first, by the fact that they are injured in the workplace; secondly, by losing the right to accrue benefits while they're off.

In 1991, $2.3 billion in benefits was paid to injured workers. From January 1, 1992, to the end of July 1992, 221,000 claims had been filed for compensation. There are several issues around these numbers. Unfortunately, this bill can't deal with the substantive issues with respect to worker health and safety and workplace safety practices. But my point is that when workers have been injured at work they clearly should not be penalized by the employer in terms of his or her vacation plan or his or her sick leave plan.

What I've done with respect to WCB is put in a two-year period in order that employers are not looking at outside limits for the return of workers to the workplace. This mirrors the average period of time that many collective agreements currently have now with respect to return-to-work clauses. Again, this is an issue of fairness that has been a long-standing issue in my experience as a workplace health and safety officer, as a union president at CUPE Local 2001, Toronto General Hospital, and it's an issue that I lobbied the Minister of Labour on during the time we were passing the employment standards amendments.

In saying that, I would also like to indicate at this point that the Minister of Labour and the ministry do support these amendments and will certainly be assisting me as we move through the process.

Again, in conclusion, the issue with respect to maternity leave: It's good business for this province and it's good for the workers. It's not only good for just unionized workplaces; it's good for non-unionized workplaces. The issue of fairness and equality is something that we as legislators should all be concerned about, and ultimately and finally, in terms of our injured workers, we should not be looking at penalizing these people for a second time. They've been hurt -- in some cases, quite seriously. We need to do whatever we can not only to get them back to the workplace but to ensure that when they do return to the workplace they are returned as whole workers in all respects.

At the end of the debate today I'm going to ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development. I certainly look forward to support from all sides of the House.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to speak on this bill that has been brought forward in private members' hour, Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. I noted in passing that it is the hope of the member for Scarborough Centre that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development afterwards.

I can only say that as the Labour critic for the official opposition who has been dealing with Bill 40, which is currently in the standing committee on resources development, the member will be aware that there are a great many people outside this chamber, throughout this province, representing many groups and associations, who feel very shut out from the process that the government has used in dealing with Bill 40, changes to the Labour Relations Act.

They feel insulted that they were not given an opportunity to have their points, their thoughts, their opinions and their concerns heard in dealing with a piece of legislation they fundamentally feel will affect the future growth of this province.

So the member may want to reflect on his last request, because there are many people who have a very sour taste in their mouths, a bitter taste in their mouths when dealing with the standing committee on resources development and labour legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to speak to the bill, please.

Mr Offer: Having said that with respect to the request made by the member for Scarborough Centre, I will now turn to my concerns with respect to Bill 82. I am concerned. I had some specific concerns with the bill, but I must say that after listening to the member my concerns are only heightened, because the member did not speak to his own piece of legislation. The member spoke about fairness; the member spoke about an atmosphere as if there were no benefits currently under the Employment Standards Act.

I think it's important for us to recognize at the outset that this is totally false, that in fact Bill 82, in its own explanatory notes, states that the Employment Standards Act will be amended "to ensure that a person who takes a pregnancy or parental leave is entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave." That's what this bill is about. It is not about maternity or parental leave, which is currently in the legislation. It is not about the benefits to people in this province, currently the law of the land. Bill 82 does not speak to that, because there is no need to speak to that.

The reason is because it is already embraced in legislation from which people have received the benefits. What Bill 82 speaks to is that a person who takes parental or pregnancy leave is entitled to vacation and sick leave as if they had not taken the leave. That's what Bill 82 is about, and I will deal with my concerns with respect to that and then move over, if time permits, to my concerns which will be largely mirrored in terms of this being extended to the workers' compensation system.

Let us be clear that the comments made by the mover of the bill were not in any way referable to the bill. The member spoke about family values, a case of survival, a penalization for having children. Again, that's as if there are not any benefits in law now. That's as if there is no maternity or parental leave, and that is just not the case.

For the member to insinuate that this bill is really to establish these types of benefits, well, there isn't anyone who has ever taken these benefits who would believe that, because he or she has already taken parental and maternity leave. They have and do receive benefits, and I and my party have always been supportive of that and will continue to be supportive of that. But this piece of legislation doesn't speak to that at all. It says that if people are on maternity or parental leave, then while they are on that leave, while they are receiving those benefits, so too shall they receive vacation and sick leave benefits, and that's what Bill 82 is all about.

In that regard, I think we have to ask ourselves a very difficult and tough question, and the question is, has there been any discussion with representatives of business groups and community organizations dealing with the costs that this will have, dealing with what it means to have an accrual of sick leave benefits and vacation benefits to the business people in the province? Has there been any discussion with a variety of social service agencies as to what impact this may have? Has there been any discussion as to where the need arises for this type of legislation?

I hearken back to concerns I have heard on other pieces of legislation: Bill 40, dealing with changes to the Labour Relations Act; Bill 80, dealing with nothing less than a disaffiliation of provincial unions from their international counterparts. We won't deal with that, because I know that is not up for discussion at this point in time.

The issue that is always brought forward on this and these matters is that the government, which that member represents, has never sat down with the people who are directly affected to listen to their concerns; to deal with the issue of why; to move in a consensual, consultative manner towards resolving an issue.

I have heard and continue to hear on a variety of issues that the process the government uses is always to divide, to polarize groups, to polarize interests, and then its process is to build the distance between those groups that have concerns, until a time is reached when those groups say and do things, the wounds of which take years to heal.

I am most critical of a government -- it is that government -- that utilizes that approach and that process time in and time out on a variety of issues which affect the future of this province, which affect the investment climate of this province, which affect the ability to create jobs in this province and to maintain a security for existing jobs.

I believe that this is another example of a member of the government moving on a piece of legislation which was not correctly referred by the mover of the bill in this chamber, without any consultation, without any idea as to what the costs of this may be, and to do so notwithstanding the very grave concerns that people have.

That is not to say that people will necessarily be against the bill. It is to say that we are dealing in an era where it is absolutely responsible, mandatory, for any government to look at the issue, to deal with the issue, to understand the issue, to understand its impact and, yes, to understand its cost. You do that not by squirrelling away in some ministry office but by reaching out to the people who will be affected to listen to their thoughts, concerns and opinions and then dealing with this bill.

This legislation flies in the face of true consultation. This is not about benefits to people on maternity or parental leave. Those are already allowed. This bill is about extending the benefits to include vacation and sick leave.

The member doesn't just leave it at the Employment Standards Act but moves further into the Workers' Compensation Act. I will read again from the legislation, the explanatory note. "The bill also ensures that the employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave. A corresponding amendment is made to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers who are unable to work because of an injury."

Again, the member would have you believe that the workers are not in receipt of any benefits. We all know that's not true. Workers do receive benefits under the workers' compensation system. What this amendment is saying is that while they are off on injury, while they're going through some rehabilitation, while they are receiving their benefits, we are also going to extend sick leave and vacation.

Again, the question is, what discussion has there been? Has this been done through the Workers' Compensation Board? There are many concerns over the running of the board. There are many concerns being voiced that the directors of the workers' compensation system, looking at other areas such as stress and funding, are in fact not even consulting widely enough on those issues. And here the member is bringing forward an extension to vacation and sick leave for workers who are injured, without any knowledge as to what that means to the funders of the system.

The funders of the system are employers. We know that the workers' compensation system is now running a debt of in excess of $10 billion. They are concerned as to how they are going to be able to deal with that debt. It would seem to me most responsible that issues of this kind be first dealt with very seriously in the area of how this will affect the unfunded liability of the workers' compensation system, because you may in fact be the architect of its destruction.

I say that not in any critical sense, but rather we no longer can afford to layer further debt on to a system which cannot find the means to pay its existing debts. I am not saying that should necessarily be a block or a barrier or a hurdle to looking at further benefits, but I am saying that it is only responsible, when looking at extending benefits, to do so fully cognizant of what the cost of this will be. It is irresponsible for any government to move on any benefit without knowing these answers. The people of this province demand no less.

That's how they run their own households; that's how they live their lives. All they are saying is, "What we want this government to do is operate the way we operate our own households." Nothing magical about it; it's just based on responsibility.

I note that my time is running out, but I would say, firstly, that this bill is not about maternity and parental leave; that is already in the legislation. We have always supported that; we have extended that. This bill is about those who are on maternity and parental leave to also receive vacation and sick leave credits. Before you do that, you should be consulting with the social groups, the social agencies, the workers and the employers of this province. Then, at the end of that consultation, you bring forward some work, but not before.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments on private member's Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.

According to the member for Scarborough Centre, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Employment Standards Act to ensure that a person who takes a pregnancy or parental leave is entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave as if he or she had not taken the leave. The bill is also aimed at ensuring that an employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave as well. A corresponding amendment is made to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers unable to work because of injury.

In theory, this is a good move to encourage new parents to nurture their children without being penalized in the workplace. However, I'm hard pressed to support this bill at this particular time, due to the current difficult economic times facing the people of Ontario. Our economy is still being battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity and our social structure is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health, education and welfare.

This is not the right time. There really is no right time to hit Ontario's beleaguered taxpayers with a new expense. Economic opportunity, social justice and health care cannot be obtained by continuing to tax and toss money at our province. The NDP government has got to get its spending priorities in order to disburse the taxpayers' money more wisely, more efficiently and more effectively.

Of particular concern to me is the amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. This will place an additional burden on the Workers' Compensation Board, which has an escalating unfunded liability of $10.3 billion. This debt represents about $45,000 for each firm presently registered with the WCB. Unless the WCB debt is brought under control, it will negatively impact the ability of Ontario businesses to compete and will impair future investment and employment in this province.

The current recession has led to an 11% decrease in employer assessment in 1990-91. The WCB derives 75% of its overall revenues from manufacturing, construction and natural resource industries, which have all been especially hard hit by the current recession. These three categories are not expected to regain 1989 employment levels until 1995, and even that recovery could be in doubt if the NDP government proceeds with its changes to the Ontario labour laws.

I suggest that the WCB system, which was created prior to 1920, is outdated and needs a complete overhaul rather than more tinkering. More than a financial burden, this is a system in crisis. The WCB funding strategy is flawed because it assumes that the solution to its financial crisis is simply raising enough money to pay for everything. It does not address the broader issue of whether there is a need for structural reform of the system. We maintain there is a need for a structural reform of the system.

As I said earlier, the theory and principle of this bill, to encourage new parents to nurture their children without being penalized in the workplace and to allow parents to continue to earn service benefits while on leave, is a noble undertaking. But I still have serious concerns that the current economic climate in Ontario is not able to support an additional financial burden that would accompany the passage of this type of legislation at this time.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on this private member's bill this morning.

The member is hoping to have the bill sent to the standing committee on resources development. He, as well as most other people in this Legislature, knows that the committee system around here is a farce. While I recognize the chairman of that committee tries to do the best with what he has to work with within the committee, it's a problem.

They talk about the consultation process; it's not working with this government. So to have this bill go to committee -- I would be surprised if that happens. There have been many other private members' bills here on Thursday mornings that get second reading and then are killed. I presume the same thing will happen to this bill. If this bill ever does get to the resources development committee, I would look forward to seeing what happens there, because I don't agree with the proposed bill this morning.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am very pleased to support the second reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act, and to support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre. I believe this bill is part of the structure that we as a society must set in place to achieve the kind of society we in this House, and certainly we in this New Democratic government, wish to build.

It's been a long-held belief that the family is the basic unit of the community, the foundation that provides the signposts, the security and the stability that will ultimately make that community strong and viable. I'd like to add that I refer to all variations of the family unit. I'm aware that when we say "family," we may be perceiving it to be the old 1950s perception of the family, the one we got from American television, from Father Knows Best and Ozzie and Harriet: the two-parent family with children, a dog and a budgie. Whether or not that stereotype ever really existed is, I think, a matter of debate.

We must, however, be realistically flexible and say that families are units of people who we hope are caring and nurturing, where individuals can find safety and security.

As the member for Scarborough Centre has so ably pointed out, that unit, that foundation which makes a strong community, is good for business, is good for investment, is good for the structures and institutions of our society. In short, it's good for all of us, and if we fail to provide whatever support we can, we do so to our own detriment, because the reality is that the financial demands on families, particularly young families, are significant.

Now, I know that many in this House are long past those difficult years when children are young and finances are thin -- all we need do is look at the elderly visage here in Mr Mills -- but that shouldn't prevent us from being aware, concerned and ready to act to ensure that families have the safety nets they need to provide the most healthy environment possible.

I can relate to that on a very personal level. My husband and I decided to begin a family after we'd been married for about four years. We'd worked very hard to establish a home in those four years and we felt we were ready for the responsibility, the demands and the joys of a child.

Despite those four years of effort and planning, the first months after the birth of our daughter were very difficult. At a time when we were dealing with the newness of parenthood, a remarkable change in our household, new responsibilities, we suffered and worried constantly about our financial stability. I had very limited maternity benefits. I might say that despite the fact that I was a working professional -- I was a teacher -- many of the women with whom I worked experienced the same kind of lack of financial support. I would be less than honest if I didn't tell you that I truly did feel penalized for committing the sin of having a child, and that should not be.

Fortunately, my husband and I have a very strong, mutually supportive relationship. We were a little more mature, perhaps, than some. I was 27; he was 30. He gets older every year; I don't. But at a time when there were tremendous stresses and when our daughter needed us to be very strong and to provide her with a positive environment, we had to deal with those stresses.

This bill is designed to expand on the premise that by allowing parents to accrue their vacation and sick leave benefits while they're away, they will be able to achieve real stability. I think that's an important message.

I think it's very important for us in this House to acknowledge the fact that it is not responsible of us to penalize young families, that it is not responsible of us not to say that we as a society are going to make every effort to make every accommodation so that children are cared for in a financially secure environment whenever we can do that, because childhood is the first building block to that strong and viable and contributing human being we need if Ontario is to move ahead.

I'd like to thank the member for allowing me to speak on this bill. I would say to the members of this House that my constituents asked me to come to Queen's Park in Toronto to do this kind of job, to provide this kind of leadership, the kind of leadership we see in Bill 82, the kind of leadership that's been provided by the member for Scarborough Centre. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to do that. My future, my child's future, our future is dependent on a strong Ontario.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments regarding private member's Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. I'd like to pay tribute to the excellent contribution that was made by my colleague the member for Simcoe East. Certainly, many of the concerns I am going to raise at this time will echo those that have already been made by him.

The member for Scarborough Centre tells us the purpose of this bill is to ensure that individuals who take a pregnancy or parental leave are entitled to the same amount of vacation and sick leave as if they had not taken the leave. The bill is also aimed at ensuring that an employee does not suffer a loss of vacation pay because of the leave, and as well, he has introduced a corresponding amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act for workers who are unable to work because of injury.

He went on to say in his discussion this morning that there is a need for fairness, that there is a need for equality and that there is a need to make sure that parents continue to earn benefits while on leave. I would suggest that there is fairness and there is equality at the present time, because much of what the member is putting forward today was already put in place by Bill 14.

If you remember Bill 14, it was a very important step forward. It gave men and women who became parents, either through birth or adoption, the opportunity to better integrate their work and their family lives, and it gave them the security of job protection. Not only did it give them the security of job protection, but Bill 14 also supported them and gave them continuation of seniority and benefit accumulation through the maternity and parental leave period.

I would suggest to the member for Scarborough Centre that the benefits, the fairness and the equality are already there. I have a tremendous concern about the suggestion and the bill he's put forward this morning, because today we have another example of a government that is trying to introduce legislation without any consultation of all the partners who are needed for the dialogue. We've seen this on Bill 40 and we have seen this on Bill 80.

Nowhere has the member for Scarborough Centre demonstrated the need for this legislation. Nowhere has he been able to demonstrate what the economic impact would be.

That's an area I want to make a few comments about. Much of the legislation that is being introduced and much of the new government regulation that is being introduced has a direct economic impact on the employer. It is the employer who provides jobs, particularly in the small business sector; it is that sector that provides new job creation. We cannot introduce new legislation with a cost to the employer without consulting with those individuals and that has not been done. I would suggest, if the government intends to proceed in this direction, for the first time ever, that it have consultation, that it truly take into consideration all the viewpoints of the people in this province.

Those viewpoints were certainly not taken into consideration during the discussions on Bill 40. During Bill 40, we had five weeks of public hearings and we had 600 written and oral presentations, and we did not even give those people the courtesy of listening to their concerns. The government is rushing through Bill 40, and we only had a chance to debate 32 of the 94 PC amendments.

If that's what they're going to do with this, obviously the indication is that there is no concern for the voice and the viewpoints of all the people in this province. If you're going to introduce this type of legislation, show the need, show the economic impact, have discussion with all the people who are impacted by the legislation and try to arrive at a resolution through consensus. That's what this government needs to start doing, rather than putting people into different camps and different groups and polarizing groups of people.

I would suggest that there's much that needs to be done. I would suggest to the member for Scarborough Centre, if he certainly wishes to do anything further, that he take the points I've raised into consideration.

I'm really surprised about the amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act. This would place, again, another additional burden on the board. My colleague the member for Simcoe East has already talked about the unfunded liability of over $10 billion. Unless this government starts to take action to bring that debt under control, that debt is going to continue to negatively impact the ability of all Ontario businesses to compete and it's going to have a very negative impact on future employment opportunities in this province and on future investment.

I would suggest that particular system needs a complete overhaul. It's something this government talked about when it was in opposition. They system is outdated. We cannot continue to tinker with the Workers' Compensation Board. There is a financial crisis at the board. It appears that no one is in control. The funding strategy is flawed, because the assumption that's being made over and over again is that the solution to the financial crisis is simply to raise money to pay for everything and to place a greater burden on the employers in this province.

The solution of addressing the broader issue of whether there is a need for structural reform of the system has never, ever been considered by this government, and it's certainly time to do so.

In conclusion, I would have to say that at the present time I think we need to remember that Bill 14 had a significant impact on parents in this province. It does provide them with seniority and benefit accumulation throughout the entire parental leave period, and to suggest that people don't have benefits now is misleading the public.

I am concerned that Mr Owens wants to send it to the resources committee, because we know that the resources committee was not able to listen to the 600 presentations regarding Bill 40 and was not able to do the job adequately.

I would agree that we need to continue to support families in this province, but I have to question whether the type of support this government is offering to families is what families need. I can tell you that I receive many letters weekly from people in the riding of Waterloo North who question government initiatives and their impact on the family. They do not support the direction you are taking. For you to say this is in support of the family, I can tell you that there are many in disagreement with some of your other policies regarding abortion, the extension of benefits to homosexuals and casino gambling.

Those are the types of concerns that people in my riding are questioning. They are questioning the impact of some of those decisions on the family, so you need to be aware of that as well.

I would just conclude by saying that we in the PC Party will be voting against this bill, and I would suggest to the member, if he is interested in examining this further, that he make sure that there be an economic impact study and that there be an opportunity for all viewpoints in this province to be not only heard but truly listened to for the first time.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It's a privilege to be able to join in this debate on an issue which is fairly basic to working people, particularly working women. I did, however, want to take a few minutes of my time, and I beg the indulgence of my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre on this, because I feel that particularly the third party has raised a number of issues which are really quite extraneous to this bill. They in fact refer to Bill 40, which I understand they have some opposition to, but have presented a rather coloured view of what has transpired.

First and foremost, for the schools that are visiting here today, I'd like to point out that this is private member's hour, and in fact it relates to a private member's bill, not a government initiative. As a result, the kind of consultation both members from the PC Party have raised as a concern for them, as well as, I believe, the member from the Liberal Party, would happen as the bill is developed and goes into committee.

I would like to raise very specifically with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot the fact that her colleague the member for London North spent two years developing a bill relating to bicycle helmets. It took over two years to get this bill developed and through this House. This particular government, our government, took on her cause and that has become government policy.

Now, it didn't come just strictly because it was her bill, a private member's bill, but because it was something that spoke to a need throughout the province. So I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot in particular would have to concede that the intent of private members' hour is to provide individual members with a chance to talk about their concerns and hopefully affect government policy and decision-making, which the member did.

Overall, these are some of the comments made from the opposition, and they are strictly differences in opinion. If I look at 18 months of consultation strictly on Bill 40, I find some of the comments that were made about the resources development committee or the white paper that was distributed previously totally inappropriate.

I would like also to comment on some of the issues of this bill specifically. I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that this is a bill that relates to families and the needs of families.

Going home the other day to participate in an event, I had a chance to listen to the CBC and some of the discussions on women and work, something that a great many of us in the working world are aware of, since 52% of the population are women and almost 50% of the workforce happen to be women. A good many of them have children and have had great difficulty in dealing with day care issues and dealing with just basically, in some instances, getting to work because of getting their children out to school and the whole process of timeliness. This one case on the CBC the other day was in fact discussed at some length.

This bill will allow parents who for the most part have not had a choice with regard to child care or some of the other issues -- this will give them an additional benefit and I believe in relation to other countries that exist, particularly in Europe where working women are paid at least 90% of their wages for 14 weeks or more -- in fact, I recently heard that this has been extended in some jurisdictions, so that these social benefits are an asset to working women and really an asset to all of society. We cannot just look at these as a liability.

Providing appropriate maternity leave benefits is really good for business: better productivity, higher morale. I really want to say that within that higher morale it means there is a stronger allegiance for employees to stay with an employer and that means a much more stable workforce. There are rewards for businesses that allow for substantial family leave plans. In fact, allowing working mothers flexibility on maternity benefits is more than just good business; it's an investment in our future and I think that's something that we all have to recognize. Our children are our future and by providing that kind of stable situation we do in fact promote our future.

The second part of this bill relates to the Workers' Compensation Act. While I think each and every one of our offices is definitely aware of the problems related to workmen's compensation, we have to be aware that workers who are on compensation are really still employees of that company and should be treated as such. The unfunded liability that some of our previous speakers have mentioned is really the result of a lot of tinkering by previous governments and today this government is left with the problem.

Since time is running out, Mr Speaker, I will in turn allow another member to speak. I thank the member for Scarborough Centre for bringing forward this particular bill.

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe the record should be clarified for the students who are here. The member for St Catharines-Brock was referring to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot is sitting right over there, not here.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your observation.

Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm very glad to be able to stand in the House this morning in private members' time and support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): That's a nice button, Gord.

Mr Mills: "I'm for Canada" it's flashing.

I don't know of a member in this Legislature who has a more caring attitude for people in the workplace than my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre.

I was kind of upset that the member for Waterloo North would choose this private members' period to go on about Bill 40, which is really nothing to do with this, and also to lambaste the member for supposedly introducing some sort of government bill without consultation. Of course, everybody here knows very well, and it's been pointed out clearly, that this is private members' time. As the member for Niagara has gone through, we've debated many things here, including the helmet legislation that's gone on through to come before a committee, and the member for Scarborough Centre had that intention when he introduced this this morning.

I can't think of a fairer thing to do when you are injured in the workplace. Nine times out of 10 that injury is through no fault of your own but probably through some sort of malfunction of equipment or whatever. That person who is injured is suddenly cut off from the benefits that he would accrue had he been at work. To me it's a basic statement of fairness. Like the member for Scarborough Centre, I'm interested in fairness and equality. I think this bill addresses that.

Why should a worker be penalized twice, why should he be injured and cut off from work and why should he not accrue the benefits that he would accrue, as far as pension and holidays and sick leave credits are concerned, while he's injured?

This act follows up on the Employment Standards Act, which would allow parents on maternity or parental leave to accrue seniority. As a society, we have an obligation to encourage new parents to nurture their children. As some of the other members have already said in the Legislature this morning, our very future, Canada's very future, circles and circumvents around young people, and we have to identify that.

In closing, I would just like to encourage the member for Scarborough Centre to continue the fight to get this before the committee. I would like again to commend him for his sensitivity and his feeling towards working class people, many of whom he represents in Scarborough Centre.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this chance to make my comments and close off. There's my Canada flag flashing.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Owens: I appreciate the comments from the members for Mississauga North, Simcoe East, Middlesex, Waterloo North and St Catharines-Brock, as well as my friend and colleague Mr Mills, the member for Durham East.

It's unfortunate that such a non-partisan bill and non-partisan exercise has been dragged into the trenches of partisan activity. It would be most helpful if members from the opposition first of all knew what they were talking about before they stood up to criticize a piece of legislation.

I'd like to address some of the comments made by the member for Waterloo North. She talks about the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, which include seniority and benefits. That's quite true. If the member for Waterloo North understood the difference between seniority and service, she wouldn't stand up and make such a statement. Seniority is what entitles workers to the order in which they take vacation, the order in which they can apply for jobs, the order in which they are laid off or recalled. It has nothing to do with the accrual of service, which is the entitlement to sick time and vacation credits that this bill addresses.

With respect to Bill 40, some of the comments that were made were clearly inappropriate. The member for Waterloo North talked about the polarization that bill has caused. Let me tell you about polarization. One of the groups that supports the third party's position on this piece of legislation published an ad in a community newspaper in my area. Subsequent to that ad, I received a death threat on my answering machine in my constituency office. If that's the kind of polarization she's talking about, these kinds of wacko tactics are just right out to lunch.

In terms of the comments of the member for Simcoe East, yes, fairness is expensive. We have the opportunity to work together on the committee on the Ombudsman. You're absolutely right: Fairness and justice is an expensive process.

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

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs O'Neill moved resolution number 28:

That, in the opinion of this House, 20 months have passed since the New Democratic government was made aware of the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted upon residents of the Grandview reform school; and since the acknowledgement of the abuse and the impact this abuse had on its victims the government implemented a six-month package for the Grandview victims that was inclusive of priority access to therapy; and since this package is no longer in effect; and since the victims of Grandview continue to experience mental anguish and remain without any permanent support for priority access to therapy, funds for legal costs, funds for training, and additional compensation; and since the government has, through the introduction of a temporary package, which has now expired, acknowledged the abuse experienced by the Grandview victims as well as their need for compensation and therapy; and since this is a government that claims to be intolerant of abuse against women; the government of Ontario should take steps to immediately establish and implement a compensation program that is inclusive of priority access to a therapist (to be chosen by the victim), ongoing funding and access to training opportunities, financial aid for legal costs, and compensation that will allow the victims to deal with the abuse and devastating effect it has had on their lives.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Ottawa-Rideau has moved private member's notice of motion number 28. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this morning to introduce a resolution concerning the survivors of the former Grandview Training School for Girls in Cambridge, Ontario. This institution was opened in 1933 as a model for the treatment of adolescent girls who found themselves in trouble with the law and were sometimes described as difficult children, girls who often had a history of abuse at home long before the tragedy of sexual abuse was recognized and treated as publicly as it is now.

The then Minister of Public Welfare, the Honourable W.G. Martin, announced: "This will be a school of training, adjustment and opportunity. We're going to have the finest school in the country for troubled girls." And what happened to these teenagers who were taken to Grandview to be educated and rehabilitated?

In March 1968, the then Minister of Correctional Services, Allan Grossman, stood in this very chamber and stated, "We do not hesitate in expressing our pride in the achievements we have made at Grandview." But the students of Grandview were being sexually and physically abused by the very people who were to be helping them.

To date, after nearly two years of investigation, there have been over 60 women who have come forward with horror stories of the nightmare that was Grandview, women who Kitchener-Waterloo Record reporter Barbara Aggerholm describes as a mixture of women who are educated and undereducated, employed and unemployed, professional and non-professional, welfare recipients and salaried, married and single, parents and non-parents. There are women on mothers' allowance and university students, secretaries and indeed a sexual abuse counsellor. Nevertheless, these women have much in common.

Some of them tell us how they cannot remember ever being in a classroom at Grandview. They tell us stories of being driven to self-mutilation to prove to themselves they were human enough to feel. They tell us stories that make all of us want to turn our heads away in shame and horror that young women and teenage girls in our very own province of Ontario could have been so viciously attacked by the very employees of the provincial government that was to be their protector.

We must not continue to turn away from these victims, these survivors. We must show them the compassion, as belated as it is, that the government of Ontario should have shown over the last 20 years.

The response to this tragedy, in my view, has been slow and sporadic by the NDP government. In the beginning, staff resources for the police investigation were allocated very reluctantly by the Solicitor General, Allan Pilkey. To this date almost two years have passed since the first victims began to be questioned, and still not one single charge has been laid.

A minister in this government has resigned as a result of an accusation from a survivor. John Smith, a former Minister of Correctional Services, has made accusations of up to a 15-year coverup. The former chief psychologist has voluntarily left his teaching duties at the University of Ottawa. And very little response to all of these significant events.

As a bare minimum, this government must provide four things to these survivors. The interim counselling that was put in place when the investigation began was, in the view of the survivors, not as accessible or useful as it could have been. It was not directly dedicated to the victims. And with a priority access label, they were placed in an already overburdened system. In addition, the funding contract ran out in August 1992 and I understand is just now being reinstated, nearly two full months later -- a major interruption in satisfying a critical need.

The organization contracted to provide counselling, Family Service Ontario, is now being asked to provide the survivors with funding for the counsellor of their choice at the request of the survivors. This direction is impossible. In the absence of legislation regulating social workers, the professionals are unable to provide that choice, and such legislation has not been a priority with the NDP government.

Secondly, this government must provide educational opportunities to the survivors so they can take advantage of their potential. This is an integral part of the process of healing and rebuilding their lives.

Legal funding is also necessary to ensure that the interests of the survivors are met as the criminal investigation continues and moves into the judicial process. It is mandatory that the best legal advice be accessible to these women in this most complex, long-standing and difficult case.

Finally, the victims have repeatedly asked for their individual medical records, which contain information vital to them personally now, information concerning medications they may have been prescribed and whose long-term effects may only now be manifesting themselves. These women have an undeniable right to know their own personal medical histories. To hold this back in the interests of a police investigation which has been dragging on for 20 months without any evidence of progress only serves to compound the sense of frustration, that the system which abused them in the first place still does not care.

As I said, these are minimum requirements which will in a small way help these women get their lives back and make it possible for these women to be more than just survivors. I repeat: counselling, educational and training opportunities, legal assistance and access to medical records -- minimal requirements and responses.

When it comes right down to it, what these survivors are asking for is very, very little. They are asking for our respect and our recognition of the unassailable fact that what happened to them was not their fault and not of their doing; that there is no excuse, nor did they deserve to be placed in a dangerous and abusive situation. They are asking us for some reparation, so necessary to their rehabilitation. What happened to these women is a sting on the social conscience of all of us, and it must never, never be allowed to happen again.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on the resolution from the member for Ottawa-Rideau. This resolution, which concerns the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted upon residents of the Grandview reform school, calls on the government of Ontario to establish and implement a compensation program, including access to a therapist, providing funding and access to training opportunities, providing financial aid for legal costs and compensation to allow victims to deal with the abuse and the devastating effect it has had on their lives.

There's no doubt in my mind that the physical, mental and sexual abuse inflicted on residents of the Grandview reform school was an extremely sad occurrence that deprived residents of their dignity. It should never have happened, and similar situations should not be permitted to occur again at any time in the future.

I know how difficult it is to bring a matter like that which occurred at Grandview to the attention of the government. In November 1987, I urged the Minister of Health of the day to investigate living conditions and allegations of abuse in an Uptergrove group home. I would like to tell you a little bit about this very disturbing incident.

In May 1985, Joseph Kendall was discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in Toronto to Cedar Glen Boarding Home, a privately run home for ex-psychiatric patients and people with developmental disabilities at Uptergrove near Orillia. In November 1987, Mr Kendall died in hospital after he had been assaulted at Cedar Glen.

Following Mr Kendall's death, an employee, who wished to remain anonymous, met me at my Orillia constituency office and told me about the deplorable health and squalid living conditions at this facility.

I tried to make the Health minister aware that health and living conditions at Cedar Glen were extremely unsatisfactory and that residents were not getting the care, treatment and dignified living conditions they rightly deserved. But I ran into a stone wall because the ex-psychiatric and developmentally disabled patients at Cedar Glen did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. They were people living in a private boarding house that was not regulated by the Ontario government and, sadly, they had fallen through the cracks.

A 61-day inquest, the longest ever held in Canada, contained 83 sweeping recommendations when it released its report in 1990. "We, the jury, are shocked and appalled at the way the vulnerable adult is forced to live in this province," said a

preamble written by the foreman in the jury's 17-page report. "These people are Canadian citizens -- some are veterans who have fought for this country -- and they have had their rights and dignity stripped from them and were put into society to live in conditions that are degrading at best." That's what the foreman said in his

preamble.

We should all be shocked at the appalling incidents such as those that occurred at Cedar Glen and Grandview. We should all work towards ensuring that similar incidents do not occur again in the future. Governments cannot let people in their care fall through the cracks. There's no doubt in my mind that we cannot deny victims of physical, mental and sexual abuse proper access to therapy, access to training opportunities, financial aid for legal costs and compensation that will allow victims to deal with the abuse and the devastating effect it has had on their lives. This is a fact that I do not and, in all good conscience, cannot argue with. None of us can.

It is my hope that the current government will come up with the necessary funds already in the coffers to accomplish the goal of this resolution without imposing another burden on the taxpayers of this province.

I wanted to express my views on some of the experiences I've had, to try to make the government aware of some of the other situations. I think this resolution brings to this House today a very important debate.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise to support the member's motion. I think it's very important that we deal with these crucial issues, issues that for far too long have been left buried.

I also want to state very firmly that our party can be proud of its record in these areas. Back in 1968, 24 years ago, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, one of our members, rose in this House and questioned the treatment that young girls were receiving in that facility. At that time, the then minister ignored his complaints, belittled him, brought forth all of these accusations about his qualifications and said, how dare he speak.

He brought forth a number of issues from psychologists and psychiatrists. Those issues were known to the government at that time and it took no action; it ignored and it covered up. These are examples of tacit approval.

At that time, the member for Beaches-Woodbine was very qualified to speak on those issues. He had for most of his life worked with troubled adolescents. Let me read to you the Hansard from that date: "Is the honourable member able to inform us -- we're really curious -- about his professional qualifications?"

Let me tell you, that man's professional qualifications stood well above those that the minister was talking about. His professional qualifications included a membership in the academy of certified social workers. That's a profession that's not recognized in this province. It wasn't recognized by the Conservative government at that time. I'll tell you who the member was who spoke against him. It was a member of the Liberal Party at that time. That's still ongoing, and of course the province of Ontario is the only one without recognition. In five years and in 42 years, that hasn't occurred.

Troubled adolescents present a great deal of problem to our system, to our social services, because these young girls are very troubled. They've often been victims of abuse themselves. They're difficult to deal with. They present many problems. I know; I myself have worked extensively in children's mental health centres. Frankly, it is difficult to deal with them, and I appreciate those concerns, but these are also people who when they enter those institutions are victims themselves. There is no reason to condone or in any way approve of those abuses, as was done at that time.

When they enter those institutions, we as a community, as a society, should expect that the professionals who deal with them can deal with them in a trusting, competent way, and that was not done. The question arises -- we hear this in the media a lot -- why should there be some sort of historical retribution, some compensation for victims so many years later? I'll tell you why: because the effects of those abuses don't go away overnight. Those effects stay with them for a long time.

I can tell you from my own personal experience -- I am quoting here from a book which contains an

article written by Drummond White: Having worked for many years, long before these issues became current and popular, with a group of adults who were molested as children, yes, those very young women who now suffer the effects of those abuses, I can tell you about my own experiences with those women. My experiences included women who've become so socially isolated that they became strangers to themselves, to their own community. They became dissociated from their own lives. They forgot. Those memories were so horrible that they had to block them out.

We have tremendous costs on a long-term basis. We have women who have suffered and suffered greatly who, as a result, often commit suicide, often are not the most sympathetic of women. But it is not their fault, as the member mentioned. They are suffering the effects of those abuses, long-term, profound abuse and long-term, profound effects. They need to receive the best of all possible care. It needs to be sensitive.

There are, I understand, some 60 women who have come forth, and I want to commend them for doing so. It is very difficult for these women to do so. I also want to say that many more will too, because these are women who have spent most of their lives hiding, most of their lives feeling as if they were responsible for the abuse that was inflicted upon them.

These are very grave effects and they have profound social and economic costs. These groups need our support, the groups for the survivors. They need our support. They are an essential way for those people to get the help they need, to feel a connection, to feel they are okay, that others have gone through the same thing and that it wasn't their fault. They also need professional help, sensitive professional help that deals with their issues, with their concerns and how these things have affected them.

I think the best way of doing this is to ensure that those practitioners who provide those services can offer them to them so that they have priority, so they can get those services as they need them and have some power in their own lives to be able to select the treating professionals they need, those trained social workers or other practitioners who offer those services. I know the Ontario Association of Family Service Agencies is very supportive of these kinds of treatments. I can say that very easily because, of course, this program represented a family service agency that I was working for at the time and that supported those programs.

I hope that my colleagues will be able to talk about how our government has responded, and I hope to hear that it has responded sensitively to their needs and will continue to do so.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to begin by thanking and commending the member for Ottawa-Rideau for bringing forward this resolution, which is very sensitive, which is very important, and which is a matter of dealing with a shame and a blot on Ontario's history.

As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has said, we cannot, we must not, turn away from these victims any longer. These victims of the Grandview incidents have called themselves "walking time bombs." They are among the most vulnerable in our society, and a major cause of that has been what they endured while they were at Grandview. They are fragile and vulnerable, and surely we, of all people, should be the first to say that this shameful coverup must end: decades and decades of people who refused to bring it forward.

The one encouraging thing about all this is that a group of these women have banded together to help themselves, to join together to try to offer this kind of support. I just want to read you a quote from one of the women, Karen Schmidt, who went to Grandview in 1969 at age 15 and stayed there almost three years. "We believe by joining together we can help each other deal with the pain associated with our memories, and persuade the government and the public to take the matter seriously," she said. It's very sad when it comes to that before the public and the government will take these victims seriously.

They have also been offered help from the rape crisis centres, and we thank them for their support during this very difficult period. But, quite frankly, self-support and support of some of the organizations is not enough. As the member for Ottawa-Rideau has pointed out, government has fallen short.

There has been no dedicated funding to them. Yes, they were granted a very short interim funding plan of six months, but they had to join the lineup. As the member for Durham Centre has said, this is not good enough. They must be given priority.

Secondly, there must be educational opportunities. For instance, the government recently settled the St John's-St Joseph's boys' schools dispute. The settlement provided victims with financial compensation as well as funds for training. This same kind of settlement should be reached with the Grandview victims. It is only fair and it is only right.

Legal funding, again, is a very important priority for these victims so that they can seek redress.

Finally, the medical information must be released. To deny the victims this information is just an infringement on their human rights, and I think this is vital if they are to go ahead and put this behind them.

I think we must agree and we will agree as members that children deserve to be safe from abuse in our institutions. The question is, are we as government moving forward and acting in the best way we can to ensure that happens? I was quite encouraged over a year ago, almost a year and a half ago, in June 1991, when these stories started coming to light and the Minister of Community and Social Services, Zanana Akande, indicated she had not ruled out a provincial inquiry to ensure that young people are protected from sexual abuse in institutions.

In an interview the minister said, "I can't turn back the clock, but I do want to make sure that these people are being helped andI do want to make sure that we are creating situations where this is not happening today." Isn't that what it comes down to? Not only assisting those victims from the past, but also in making sure that our children are safe in institutions today.

The minister seemed to suggest that the funding and provision of counselling programs for Grandview victims would be a priority, as would ensuring the safety of children currently residing in provincial institutions. However, it wasn't till February 28 of this year that funding for counselling was finally provided for Grandview survivors, and now we find out that funding, as little as it was, has ended.

I think there are a number of things we can do. The one thing our leader, Lyn McLeod, has suggested is that the recommendations contained in Joanne Campbell's report -- a commission following allegations of abuse at St Joseph's and St John's training schools -- provided a blueprint to ensure that provincially operated facilities provided a safe and secure environment for children in care.

The NDP government has announced funding to improve training for staff and also to educate children of their rights and how to report abuse. But I say there's much more to be done. First of all, we must ensure that support for the victims. Secondly, additional OPP resources should be dedicated to the investigation to make sure that we understand exactly what happened and so that we can ensure it never happens again. Finally, we should call for an investigation into incidents of sexual abuse in provincial facilities. Surely the events at Bell Cairn bear out that this is necessary.

In my closing comments I would just like to echo those of the member for Ottawa-Rideau, "It is our duty and our responsibility as members to ensure that this never, ever happens again."

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): At the outset I wish to commend the member for Ottawa-Rideau for bringing forward this resolution. I have on occasion had opportunities to talk to her about this issue. As members are probably aware, I raised this issue both in the media and in this House back in May 1991 and at that time called for a public inquiry based on the information I had received from victims through the efforts of the journalists at the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, in particular Barb Aggerholm.

Since having raised the issue and since commenting publicly in several forums, I've had the rare privilege of having been contacted by the victims themselves, and within a very careful and very sensitive environment, along with their therapist, have been invited to meet with them to discuss at length and in detail the circumstances that brought them to Grandview and the circumstances that have brought them to this point in their lives when they are prepared to deal with the devastation of their treatment, both prior to and leading up to Grandview and their experience at Grandview.

I can only say that nothing in my life prepared me for the three and a half hours I spent meeting with these victims. I appreciate the fact that I've never had to experience the kinds of horrors, nor was I able to fully comprehend through the eyes of a woman just how serious are the tragedies that have befallen such a large number of girls and children.

We must remind all members of the House that these were children, in almost all cases, who were forced to attend Grandview centre. In almost every single case, and there's been enough documentation to date, these children were themselves victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse in and around their home. I'm not saying all cases of children who were referred to Grandview, but in almost all cases.

What we have here is a situation where, as I talked to one girl -- and I'll refer to her as Mary because I wish to protect her anonymity -- she sat down and began to explain how she had been sexually assaulted by her father at age eight. Her mother, when she asked her for help, refused to acknowledge it. When she went to her priest, he refused to acknowledge it. Through a process of fleeing the home, she was charged with delinquency. She engaged in activities in her community and was picked up by the police.

At age 11, this girl was used by the police, with wiretapping information, to get a prostitution conviction of an individual in her community. When she went, in her anonymity as an 11-year-old child, before the judge in his private chambers, it was fully disclosed and known how she had assisted the police and the circumstances leading up to her abuse. Yet, out of convenience, this girl, because the family did not wish to deal with the allegations of incest and sexual assault in the home, had been sent away. It was convenient to the police and the magistrate in that jurisdiction. These are the documented facts.

Why I share that terrible story with the members of this House is because we must have a public inquiry for these survivors because a police inquiry will not work. In virtually every case there has been some degree of abuse by authority. Whether it is the parent, whether it is the school, whether it is the police and, in several cases, the magistrate or the judge, these women have been badly hurt by positions of authority. So what do we, as legislators, come up with? We'll have an inquiry done by the police. A male authority figure is going to go in and start talking to one of these victims after she has been sexually assaulted.

I am told by the group of survivors that there could be as many as 20 to 25 former inmates who are today, in the city of Toronto, actively involved in prostitution. This is not an unusual circumstance. Victims of sexual assault and incest generally, if they cannot receive treatment, support and assistance, end up in a life of prostitution. We expect, in our arrogance, that a police officer is going to be able to go into their homes and get depositions from these people. One police officer has been assigned to this case. When they started to realize that there was sexual involvement with some of the police officers, then they thought they'd bring in the OPP.

I support fully the public statement of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, who said this is probably going to be another coverup, because he understands the point I'm raising in the House that these women will not get a proper hearing.

The second victim I met with at length was Sara. She was shaking. She would not talk to the police. After pouring out all of her history, her story, dates and details, she couldn't bring herself to talk to a police officer because she'd been abused by a police officer. You can't blame the girl for that. She's struggling to put her life together. She has a child of her own. She's trying to protect her child. She's afraid that if she comes forward, she'll lose her child.

She, in that moment of dignity, had the courage to ask the question, "Mr Jackson, you don't think I was bad, do you?" That's how frail and how battered these women are, but within them there is enough dignity if we understand what they've gone through and if we respond accordingly.

We need a public inquiry where these women will be given the protection they need in order to come forward with the facts. A police inquiry will not do that, and we know that. We must ensure that it is an as-of-right fact in this province. We're one of the few provinces that doesn't acknowledge that victims of incest and sexual assault should be guaranteed therapy services and access to psychiatric support services.

Not to sound partisan, but if we, the last province in Canada, don't have a victim's bill of rights which acknowledges that victims of sexual assault deserve and must have the healing treatment of qualified therapists and psychiatrists, then these women will never be able to resolve the struggle that has gone on inside of them.

In Ontario today, these women are completely ineligible for criminal injuries compensation funding, because we have the lowest access rate in Canada for women and victims of sexual assault in this province to those funds. Why? Because our system doesn't acknowledge and understand the need.

There are serious health care cuts going on in this province, and we know that these are included among them, but I ask the members of this House to understand the depth of this problem, to listen to all members of this House who are saying that we don't necessarily need another police investigation. It failed in the 1960s. The first part of this police investigation is failing and the concluding one from the OPP will fail. The women will not come forward with all of their information, because they're not protected.

I would like to go on and talk about the devastation that's occurring with children's aid society funding. They were eligible for 0.5% from this government. There's an 80% increase in sexual assault on children today. The Grandview survivors, if asked, will tell you, "I'm coming forward because today children are being sexually assaulted, and I don't want them to go through what we're going through." There are five-, six-, eight-week waiting lists for children with reported sexual abuse. It's going on in this province today.

The political will to resolve the Grandview issue and those children who are the ongoing victims of sexual, emotional and physical abuse at home must be a priority for us if we are to give those children any sense of dignity and hope.

One of the victims wanted me to share with the House part of a poem she had written, because she knew that many of the Grandview survivors would be watching today in the House. In 1986, years after her incident, Sherry wrote a poem, Because I Am:

Because I am and will continue to be

A human being, alive and free Free to choose and free to decide

Free to become my own life's guide.

Because I am.

Because I am and will continue to be

A human being, with dignity, A dignity that struggles to stay alive A dignity that says I will survive

Because I am me.

On behalf of the Grandview survivors, I ask all members of the House, on behalf of these victims, for their dignity, for their own self-empowerment, for a signal from this legislative chamber, because we represent what society will say and do for these victims. We must respond with the proper support services and get past the politics of a coverup and respond accordingly with sensitivity to these victims. They deserve no less.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I just have to say, after the previous member has spoken, that I think all of our offices are acutely aware of the situation and, in fact, all of our offices are probably advocating for people from Grandview. I know we take our job very, very seriously. These are very human and very real issues.

Speaking specifically to the member for Ottawa-Rideau's resolution, I will say to her that I will be supporting her resolution in principle, but I do have one or two concerns with regard to how the resolution is structured, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some of the comments made.

First and foremost, the therapy package that she makes mention of, as she corrected within her comments, had no break in service at all. In fact, all of the people who were to receive service have received service and will continue to receive service into the new year, and the contract relating to counselling will, in fact, be renegotiated. That is the commitment, and no one will be abandoned.

Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, who is in fact leading on this issue, is meeting this week with the executive of the Grandview survivors' group to determine what additional financial needs it has. Quite clearly, compensation is an option, as the member for Eglinton raised, and negotiations will undoubtedly at some point take place.

This resolution calls for the government to take immediate action. It is our belief that immediate action was taken. As soon as women came forward their needs were responded to by this government. Our government negotiated with survivors through Family Service Ontario. Acknowledgement was made that choice for former Grandview residents is crucial and important and that women who come forward should receive service that is appropriate to meet their needs. It is my view that for the most part, and I'm not suggesting in all cases, that has been accomplished.

We continue as a government to have ongoing discussions with the women who have come forward regarding future service provision, funding for their organization, as well as compensation. Our commitment as a government is zero tolerance; it has been the policy of this government from the beginning. The Ontario women's directorate is working diligently to make all Ontarians aware that this problem must be rooted out. The past shows us that we have a long way to go but I believe also that we have made some headway. I also want to comment on the fact that there is additional funding that has taken place over recent time, that when money was required by the organization, in fact it was allocated.

In conclusion, I think the resolution is fundamentally incorrect and based on some misconceptions, but I will support in principle the intent of the resolution, as our government is committed to supporting women and this government is intolerant of abuse against women.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in support of my colleague's motion and join in the debate.

I'm very pleased to see that the government members, at least those who have spoken, have indicated that they are going to be supporting this motion because I think it is important to look at the wording at the end of the member for Ottawa-Rideau's resolution where the focus of our time and our attention should be on the services, the help, the assistance that the victims require.

I don't think there is anything for a minister in any government more horrible than to have someone come in to tell you about allegations of abuse. As members will know, it was the question of St John's, the school in Alfred, that came to the fore when I served as Minister of Community and Social Services.

I can remember, somewhat similar to my colleague from Burlington South as he recounted some of the discussions that he had with victims from Grandview, that as one talked to those who had the courage to come forward, we don't always realize, I think, those of us who by good fortune have not had to suffer through what these victims have, the incredible courage that it takes to stand up and to say what happened.

We know that in the past and regrettably probably even in the present there are times when young people who are in our care, who are dealing with people in positions of trust, come forward to report things which are either not believed or which perhaps members of the adult community would prefer not to deal with. Then how does that young person go on trying to come to grips with it?

So as we sat down at that time to try to work out the kinds of services, the kinds of support, the kinds of assistance that would be required by the victims from the Alfred situation, I think what was clear to me was that the focus must always be on ensuring that the people who need services receive them and that somehow in the priorities that we set, whether in individual ministries or by the government, whatever else is going on, let's make sure that those are there, whether that is through ultimately a victims' bill of rights or simply a clear enunciation of government policy followed up by the kinds of services and funds required, I think for the victims it is the day of access to first-class aid and assistance.

That is what I think as a Legislative Assembly we want to make clear.

I want to draw attention again to the report prepared by Joanne Campbell, The Review of Safeguards in Children's Residential Programs. There are always two things we're dealing with here. The first is to deal with certain actions that took place in the past, and where we want to do right by the victims, not only in terms of compensation but in terms of the rest of their lives, that the kind of help, whether job training or whatever kind of support they need, is there.

Of course, it also then raises the question, can we feel confident that similar things are not going on, that we are providing the children we currently have in care with the best protection possible?

The Joanne Campbell report, which came out of the St John's issue two years ago, was released in I think December 1990. I suggest to the government that it might be useful, as we are looking at the Grandview incident and as people are wondering about what protections are in place, to provide for the public an update on the recommendations provided in the report and the steps the government has taken to implement them.

I think there was an agreement at the time that Ms Campbell was an excellent person to undertake the review. I believe the report she prepared was an excellent one. There were many good things in it: many of the recommendations in terms of the training those working in care of children are receiving, the kind of response system one wants to have.

As always in these cases, there is a need by the public -- indeed a right the public has -- to know that for the children in care today in the various institutions run by Community and Social Services, Correctional Services or any government agency, we really have moved far beyond the kind of care available in this case to the women at Grandview. I think that would be a useful step forward.

The other question that comes up when we look at this is what the range of services required is and how we go about funding them. Again, I think we know through the St John's matter and the Grandview matter that it is quite likely we're going to hear of other cases. I think people take courage from those who have come forward and, as we have seen and will see again, more will come forward to say, "These are things that happened." That means that what the government needs to do to respond to that is to have a more structured program, with a clearer set of the kinds of services that will be available, how people can access them and how, over a period of time, those services will continue.

I know the honourable member who spoke just before me has said that the services for the Grandview victims are continuing, but we know from the estimates discussion with the minister that there was a breakdown at one point where those services weren't there. If we have a more structured system in place, that won't happen, and we will be able to ensure that all of those who need help will get it.

We should go back as well to the comments made by the member for Burlington South around the dilemma that faces the victim, how they view us in authority and how we must try to break through that lack of trust which has grown up because people along the way -- different people in the system, whether police officers, social workers, members of the family, health workers, any particular part of society -- have not helped, or there's a feeling simply that their trust was misused and they didn't get the assistance they wanted. That is the reality, and no matter our professions of wanting to help, people are going to be suspicious.

I think that means there needs to be some more structured response where, when people need help or want to come forward, that can be done. How is that organized? We have a number of different ways of protecting children, but I think we're simply going to have to strengthen them. I believe the Campbell report was a good place to start. Let's provide the services to the Grandview victims, make sure that's all there, and then let's move on and create a way of responding in future to the concerns those people are going to be bringing. I think one of the ways to start is to support my colleague's motion.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As I listened to Mr Jackson and Mr Beer indicate on the bottom

section of the resolution, I must agree with them: The bottom

section of the resolution is an important one. Speaking on behalf of the ministry, I think we've identified that.

A number of issues have been brought forward about the interruption of services. The interruption of services never happened. The Ministry of Community and Social Services, with the Attorney General's office, is going to continue working with those victims on an ongoing basis.

If I were to stand here before you today and talk about how the victims feel, I think I'd be misleading a lot of people. What I can say is that I know the minister and the ministry itself are looking forward to working and continuing to work.

As we talk about these incidents that took place between 1960 and 1970, and the school closing in 1976, when it was brought to light in the early 1990s, it's something that was deeply embedded. The counselling my colleague Mr Drummond White had brought forward, the available services, the services required for people, are very important. It's a very deep issue that you have to kind of move into and try to bring out of individuals.

There is a continuing police investigation going on about what happened around this time period. Some of the charges are still pending, and it's very hard to make comment on that. But what we can make comment on is where the government is looking to continue and has continued the support programs that are in place. We're extending programs to March 31, 1993, and also the organizational support from November 30, 1992. But we will find out, through the dialogue, about services that need to be provided, because I believe that each individual case will be of significant difference.

I don't believe there will be two similar situations that you can compare. I believe in the continual approach of self-help groups to identify what took place in that time, because you have to go back a number of years and try to bring this out.

Mr McLean brought up important issue. I think it is very good to address it this time. It's around the Advocacy Act. It's very important to talk about the vulnerable people who are out there.

Mr Jackson also raised a number of points about the children of today's society. It's unfortunate that these incidents are happening, but I think we have to do an analysis of our society and ask why it is happening and look at the global picture of things and how we resolve this situation.

As my colleagues from this side of the House have indicated, we will be supporting the resolution. As Mr Jackson says, "Don't look at this in the political sense." That's exactly what we're not going to do; we're going to look at the contents of the bottom paragraph of this resolution.

The women's directorate and I have the privilege of working with the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is also the minister responsible for women's issues. This government continues to put its support to try to help the women of Ontario. We will continue to do that through a number of programs that were implemented in November 1990 and May 1991.

This government will continue to support the victims of Grandview, the victims who are outside in the province of Ontario, who are very important for us. I think as we members of the Legislature listen very closely, we'll be able to provide the mechanisms to solve the problems.

Mrs O'Neill: I am delighted that all members of the House are in agreement with my resolution that what the women of Grandview suffered is a stain on our social conscience, no matter which side of the House we sit on, and must never be allowed to happen again.

I have some difficulty with the accusations that I am dealing with misconceptions. I do keep in very close touch with the president of the survivors' group. There was certainly some misunderstanding and interruption of services at the end of August. I think that has been remedied.

The group support also seems at times to be very fragmented. The women expressed their needs to me in that they meet a wall of silence when they deal with the government, and a chasm of misunderstanding. The survivors know what their needs are and we must attempt to meet them, not with short-range March 31, 1991, deadlines, or August 30, 1992. This in itself builds in insecurities.

The victims themselves have talked to me about the zero tolerance statement of this government as sometimes being totally irrelevant to their experience. I am just bringing to you what their statements to me have been.

This morning we have had agreement, and I hope with that commitment the Grandview survivors will begin to have their real needs met. We must remove, once and for all, every suspicion of a coverup in this case. I'm very happy that all sides of the House appreciate what these victims are suffering and the cost it has been to them as individuals. I underline again, and all members have underlined, that it was not their fault. That is what makes this so very tragic.

The Grandview survivors' group needs support, the individuals need support, and I certainly think this structured support and response system that has been lacking should be put into place.

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

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 25, standing in the name of Mr Owens. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Owens has moved second reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers' Compensation Act. 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.

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

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee? Agreed? All those in favour of the motion will please rise so that your numbers can be counted.

Please take your seats. The member for Welland-Thorold, would you please take your seat.

There is clearly a majority in favour that this bill be sent to the standing committee, therefore it will be referred to the standing committee.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mrs O'Neill has moved private member's notice of motion number 28. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs O'Neill has moved resolution number 28. All those in favour of the motion will please --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no, this is not a bill; this is a resolution. Mrs O'Neill has moved resolution number 28. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Johnson, Kormos, Lessard;

MacKinnon, Mahoney, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, McLean, McLeod, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Rizzo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Villeneuve, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion of Mrs O'Neill will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 48, the nays 0.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 48, the nays are 0. I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed at 1208.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WESTWAY AFRICAN CHOIR

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): At a time when all of us are trying to honour the unique and precious multicultural heritage that is ours in Ontario, and at a time when nations around the world are struggling to build bridges among peoples of different races, colours and religions, I want to pay tribute to the unique and very special contribution of the Westway African Choir at the Westway United Church in my riding of Etobicoke-Humber.

The Westway African Choir was formed in 1989 at a meeting of the Ghanaian brothers and sisters of the Westway United Church. The leader, and in many ways the driving figure, of this fine choir group has been Mr Kwasi Akuamoah Boateng, who has continued as the choir's director.

I had the pleasure of hearing the Westway African Choir perform at CultureFest in Etobicoke, and I was enchanted by the beautiful melody and striking rhythm that the members of this choir brought to their evangelical musical ministry.

I'm rising to pay tribute to Mr Boateng and the 20 or so active members of the Westway African Choir. They render a magnificent service in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the province and for the province of Ontario. The members of this assembly join me in wishing them well and in urging them to keep up their fine contribution to our cultural heritage in Ontario.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Ministry of Natural Resources, and it concerns its misguided forest policy. The minister has only been in the House about three times since this session opened, and his total disrespect for this House is not going unnoticed.

The future for three tree growers in northwestern Ontario is particularly grave because none of the growers has contracts from your government for seedling production for the 1993 season.

At the same time there exists a serious lack of effort on the part of your government to settle simple negotiations with paper companies that would enable direct contracting with tree seedling producers in northwestern Ontario. Seedling producers have been informed by the paper companies that they are ready and eager to negotiate for the seedlings for 1993, but the holdup lies in the pulp and paper industry's inability to access the appropriate bureaucrats in order to come to an agreement.

Minister, the implications of your misguided forest policy on the tree seedling industry and all those employed in it are obviously devastating. The ramifications for our forests are equally in trouble.

Your current ministry budget allocates approximately $230 million to forestry over the next three years, and you plan to cut that by $100 million, $40 million to be slashed in the first year alone. You are feeding the current recession, rather than alleviating it, by killing off Ontario's forest industry.

EVENTS IN BEACHVILLE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to correct an historical error regarding the first recorded game of baseball.

Documents show that a baseball game took place June 4, 1838, in Beachville, Ontario, in Oxford county, a full year before Abner Doubleday's claims for Cooperstown, New York.

It was almost 50 years afterwards that Dr Adam Ford, after moving to Denver, Colorado, reminisced about the sports of his youth in Oxford county.

In 1886 he wrote a letter to the editor of Sporting Life. He described a game played "in a nice, smooth pasture field just back of Enoch Burdick's shops" in Beachville. Research has confirmed many of the details of the day as he recounted them: the pasture, the players, the homemade ball and bats, even the militia unit that stopped to watch the game.

This kind of historical information is available to us because of the work of the Beachville District Historical Society Museum. The staff even helped to organize a re-creation of the first game on its 150th anniversary in 1988.

Last July it was especially pleasing for me to announce on behalf of the Minister of Culture and Communications that the Beachville District Historical Society Museum would receive up to $11,000 to help build an additional exhibition space.

The historical society has also another tie to baseball history. Earlier this year it moved to a grey stone house, built in 1851. The house has been owned by a local quarry operation, BeachviLime Ltd. Beachville, of course, is the lime capital of Canada, and over the years its products have been used to line countless baseball diamonds across North America.

In closing, I hope our good friends and neighbours to the south don't take offence when I turn their sports mythology upside down by explaining that baseball has always been our game and we will demonstrate that tonight when Canada's team, the Toronto Blue Jays, claim the World Series title by winning game 5.

STEVE MACLEAN

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today, Steve MacLean, a resident of Nepean, will become the third Canadian to reach space. This is a very proud moment, foremost for Steve and his wife, Nadine, and for his parents, Paul and Helen, who reside in my great city as well. But it is also a special moment for all people of Nepean. My fellow citizens and I join in the pride and excitement of the MacLean family and wish Steve every success in his research mission in space.

Nine years of strenuous training have preceded this trip to space, not to mention the tremendous efforts that went into his selection in 1983 from 4,400 applicants as one of Canada's first six astronauts.

Nepeanite Steve MacLean is a two-time Canadian gymnastics champion, the President's Medal winner at York University, an esteemed astrophysicist, a rock climber, a pilot and a parachutist.

As a payload specialist during his mission on spaceship Columbia, MacLean will do experiments on behalf of Canadian scientists. His biggest task will be to test the space vision system which will help future astronauts better guide the robotic Canadarm.

On behalf of everyone in Nepean, I invite my colleagues in the Ontario Legislature to join me in congratulating astronaut Steve MacLean and wishing him a safe and successful return to planet earth.

HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement today is about a concern I and many others have with the Health Protection and Promotion Act. My particular concerns with this piece of legislation were brought forward in a meeting I had with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and stem from its frustration in trying to find out if members of its association have come in contract with a person who has a communicable disease in the course of their duties.

We are asking the emergency care providers of this province to protect our health without giving them the means to protect their own. Ontario firefighters, ambulance drivers and police officers provide an invaluable service protecting our families and lives and yet we do not give the ability to protect themselves.

I have prepared a private member's bill that I will be introducing in this Legislature later today, asking for the members of this House to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act, thereby allowing people who have been involved in an emergency care situation to be informed by the medical officer of health as to whether they have been exposed to a reportable and communicable disease in the course of helping someone in an emergency situation.

The medical officer of health would be obligated to tell emergency care providers if they had been in contact with an individual who has a communicable disease, thereby allowing the care givers the opportunity to protect themselves and their families from further spread of the disease.

As aware and careful as we are about how to protect ourselves from communicable diseases, we are putting our firefighters, ambulance workers and police officers at great risk when we do not allow them to know if they have come in contact with an individual who has a communicable disease.

STUDENT NEWSPAPERS

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): At Ontario's universities our young people, our next generation, receive the education to cope with the world they will inherit. The intellectual disciplines of academe demand the ability to deconstruct writing, to be aware of the history of society's institutions, to have the ability to analyse statistics to ensure that published studies have validity, to write defensible papers based on carefully studied facts.

I would like to commend the learning and teaching of the students on a number of student newspapers: the Varsity at the University of Toronto, the Arthur at Trent, the Lance at Windsor, the Ontarian at the University of Guelph and Excalibur at York University.

They have voted to pull their papers, which have a combined circulation of over 100,000, out of the Ontario Community Newspaper Association because of that organization's tendentious campaign against Bill 40. Obviously they would be embarrassed to be associated with the selected facts and unsupportable assertions of OCNA's campaign.

Let me quote Drew Davis, editor of Guelph's Ontarian, who says: "Newspapers have a special responsibility to provide balanced and fair coverage of the news. To take an active

part in opposing or supporting legislation in the way OCNA has done is totally unacceptable."

We must never minimize the value of a free and objective press. I hope members of this House will join me in complimenting the students on their well-thought-out and principled action.

PERSONS DAY

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Sixty-three years ago, in an historic decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain, the women of Canada were declared persons and given the right to hold public office. Tomorrow morning, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which we commonly call LEAF, will hold its fifth annual Persons Day breakfast to commemorate this event.

As amazing as it sounds, before 1929 women were not recognized as persons under our Constitution and under our laws. It took 12 years of hard work by the famous five, led by Nellie McClung, to secure this recognition.

Those of us who today enjoy all the advantages of personhood, including the right to serve in this Legislature, owe a great deal to those women who worked so hard for so long to advance the cause of women. They established that we not only have the right to vote but also the right to fully participate.

While the "persons" decision was not a recognition that men and women were equal, it was certainly a pivotal step in the women's movement. Sometimes we get very discouraged, because here, 63 years later, we're still fighting the battle for pay equity, child care, freedom of choice and the ability to live free from the threat of violence in our homes and in our communities. But without the initiative seized by those suffragettes, we would not have advanced as far as we have today. We owe Nellie McClung and the women who pioneered the women's rights movement our eternal gratitude.

HOPE PLACE WOMEN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In recognition of International Persons Day for Women, I wish to acknowledge the important services being provided by Hope Place Women's Treatment Centre in Milton to women suffering from alcohol addiction.

Hope Place fills a great need in Halton and Peel regions, where there are over 8,000 women requiring addiction treatment services. For the past two and a half years Hope Place has been providing community-based treatment for 200 women it successfully assists each year. Its treatment programs are oriented to address the specific problems of women alcoholics. Many women alcoholics are victims of physical and sexual abuse who also suffer additional scorn for their addiction by a society that refuses to recognize their victimization by male-dominated relationships and institutions.

Hope Place may itself, however, become a victim at the hands of the NDP Health minister, who is refusing to adequately fund the treatment centre. A year ago the Health minister announced she was cutting OHIP benefits to Ontario residents who receive alcohol treatment services in the US when not available in Ontario. We believed she was sincere then when the minister promised to divert those funds to improved community-based treatment programs and centres in our province.

Why now is the minister cutting this funding for centres like Hope Place? I call on the Minister of Health to reconsider her confusing funding priorities, especially with respect to the needs of vulnerable women in Ontario.

FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On behalf of the government and all members of this House I am pleased to join the Canadian Foster Family Association in declaring this week, October 18 to 24, Canadian Foster Family Week.

Foster Family Week is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate and recognize the important role foster families play in providing a safe, stable and caring environment for children who require alternative family settings. The 54 children's aid societies in Ontario provide substitute care to more than 19,000 children annually. As of December 31, 1991, about 55% of those children were being cared for in over 4,800 foster homes.

During Canadian Foster Family Week, foster families, children's aid societies and foster parent associations throughout the province will be involved in a wide variety of special events designed to recognize people who are currently foster parents and to potentially recruit new foster families.

I know I speak for everyone here when I say thank you to all the foster parents in Ontario for their dedication and concern for the special needs of children, and to children's aid societies for their ongoing commitment to children in Ontario.

On behalf of Canadian Foster Family Week, we have a number of guests in the members' gallery east representing the Foster Parent Society of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.

Also, it's kind of a recruitment drive, and I have a little poster here I'd like to show. It says: "Wanted: Someone to hug and bug. Be a Foster Parent." So if anyone out there is watching and they have any desire to be a foster parent, they should contact their children's aid society or the foster parent association.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to release in the House today Consultation Counts. It's readable. It's a document that will change the way non-profit housing is delivered in this province. It's the result of the housing framework consultations that we've been working on for more than a year, and it takes non-profit housing in new directions.

We've heard from a range of people who live and work in non-profit housing, and through them we've found ways to improve our non-profit programs. This is a new beginning for non-profit housing.

For six years now, Ontario has delivered provincial non-profit housing programs, and overall we've done a very good job. We've created thousands of homes for Ontarians and generated tens of thousands of jobs. But non-profit housing has changed over the years, and it's time for us to change the way it is delivered and the way it operates.

We know that in the past, consultations have all too often left out the people they affect the most. In the case of non-profit housing, the people who are looking for decent, affordable housing are often the ones who have gone unheard.

Nous voulions nous assurer que ces personnes fassent

partie de La consultation : ça compte. Nous les avons rencontrées dans des centres de rencontre et dans des maisons de chambres pour nous assurer qu'elles auraient voix au

chapitre dans cette consultation. Les personnes auxquelles nous avons parlé nous ont appris d'importantes leçons.

We heard one particular message over and over again: Residents need to be involved in their housing. It makes sense. Who knows a place better than the people who live in it?

We're taking steps to make sure residents have more say in how their buildings are run. Non-profit communities will now have to have residents on their boards of directors, and residents will be involved in deciding how their buildings are managed.

Non-profit housing has to be more accessible to people with special needs, so we're asking groups to include more of these units in their buildings, and we're looking for designs that can be easily converted into physically accessible units.

We're also going to better coordinate the support services already provided by different ministries.

We also believe that non-profit housing must be more accessible. We want to make it easier to find. We want to simplify the process of getting in and we want people to know how the selection process works.

Pour ce faire, nous prévoyons instaurer un système à «guichet unique» ; les personnes pourront se présenter ou téléphoner à un endroit où elles pourront obtenir tous les renseignements dont elles ont besoin concernant le logement à but non lucratif.

We're building a closer partnership with the non-profit sector, a partnership with new ground rules. Non-profit housing has come a long way over the past six years, and so have the people who build and manage it. They have years of experience now and it's time for us to take advantage of what they've learned. It's time for non-profit housing providers to take on more responsibility in terms of their day-to-day management.

We're still going to monitor things like financial accountability, but by concentrating more on end results and less on daily details. These changes will result in less duplication and will create a more efficient program. We're striving to make non-profit housing easier to understand and more sensitive to people's needs.

We're also setting guidelines for the use of government lands for housing. Our new policy will strengthen the requirements for non-profit and affordable market housing on these sites. Under the old policy, 35% of housing on government land had to be affordable. Now 35% will be non-profit and an additional 35% will be affordable market housing. Small sites, those that can accommodate only one project, will be used exclusively for non-profit housing.

As the federal government statistics have stated on many occasions, non-profit housing is keeping our residential construction industry going during these tough times. In fact, this year it will generate 43,000 jobs in Ontario.

The 24,000 non-profit homes that will be under construction this year will provide homes for people like the woman I had tea with at the opening of Rotary Cheshire Homes for Deaf-Blind Adults in North York. For the first time in her life she had a place she could call her own, something she thought she'd never have.

It is true that building this kind of housing is expensive, but when you buy a house you make an investment for the future. That's what we're doing. We're paying off a mortgage instead of paying rent, and at the end of the road we'll have more affordable houses for Ontarians, a lasting investment to show for public dollars.

Consultation Counts is part of this government's continuing commitment to non-profit housing, and I look forward to seeing its policies and principles implemented in Jobs Ontario Homes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Richard Simmons would be embarrassed about running this on TV.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why don't you listen?

Mr Stockwell: I heard it. I read it. It's a puff piece, Mills.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We'll be ready to do a proposal call for the program in November and we plan to announce the first allocations early in the new year.

The housing framework consultation has been a long process -- longer than we had initially hoped -- but it's also been a very good and a very rewarding one. We're taking non-profit housing in some exciting new directions, and I'm very proud to be part of that effort.

The Speaker: Statements by ministers. Responses.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a number of comments to make in response to the minister's statement today. To say that we've been waiting for this for a long time is an understatement. It's been a year and a half since it was initially introduced. The consultation ended a year ago, we have been asking the minister on a regular basis where it was, and finally we have the document.

It would have been nice, after waiting for a year and half, if the minister's office had had the courtesy to let the critics have a copy prior to 10 minutes before her statement. It's a 47-page document, and to reply with any informed opinion is extremely difficult when we haven't had the opportunity to actually read the document.

There are a number of things which the minister talked about that we definitely support and that I think all members of this House should support.

How could you say that you don't think residents should have more of a say in how their buildings are run? That's very important. How can you say that you don't believe it should be accessible? Of course non-profit housing should be accessible, and we believe in going in this direction.

The one-window system is also a good idea. Increasing the affordable housing component by the additional 35%, which it will now be geared to -- 35% non-profit plus 35% affordable market housing -- I think is a very positive direction.

But I must tell you that I do have a problem with a number of the things the government is doing, because its actions just don't match its words.

On page 6 of this document, it lists the policy objectives. Number 7 is, "Support the important role of the private sector in the housing market by encouraging measures that assist the financing of private sector housing and provide efficient planning processes." This is a joke. The private sector in Ontario has learned not to trust this government. They negotiated in good faith over the Rent Control Act and found that they were stabbed in the back. There has been no partnership with the private sector. There wasn't before, and believe me, because there is no trust there, there will not be in future.

So you may say these nice words, but the private sector is not going to be interested in doing a whole lot of work with you.

The second is, "Recognize and support the important and interrelated roles of municipalities, the not-for-profit sector and private housing sector in creating a wide range of types and tenures of affordable housing in Ontario." Again, the actions don't match the words. Look at the accessory apartment, the basement apartment issue. That's an issue where the principles and the intentions are good intentions but they went severely amok, because the municipalities were not involved in meaningful consultation. Their ideas were not accepted, Madam Minister.

You can shake your head, whatever you want, but municipalities are saying that they have not been involved. This is a made in Queen's Park policy and you have not consulted with the municipalities as to the effect.

Number 9, "Prevent the deterioration of the existing buildings and explore opportunities to create new homes from these buildings, since they are the greatest source of affordable housing." This is nothing less than a mockery. This is a picture, which members probably can't see, but it shows the state of our social housing in Ontario. The Ontario Housing Corp and the MTHA are crying out for money to help them shore up their existing buildings and they are not getting it.

So to talk about deterioration of existing buildings when you don't practice what you preach is not going to be terribly helpful, because people are not going to trust you. We want to know how you're going to deal with this. I look forward to looking to the other 41 pages and hope they'll give us some of the answers in this regard.

One final point. They mentioned that Jobs Ontario Homes will produce another 20,000 homes in Ontario and 34,000 jobs over the next three years. At the time the budget came out, we said you would not be producing one job through Jobs Ontario Homes this year, and that in fact is true. Your own ministry officials confirmed it in Housing estimates and now you're talking about hopefully having some allocations next year.

There will not be construction jobs coming out of the Jobs Ontario Homes program this year and they won't even come out this fiscal year, because by the time those are being built, we are into the next fiscal year. One more case of smoke and mirrors from this government that doesn't put its principles where its mouth is.

The Speaker: Responses, third party, the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I want to stand in this House this afternoon in response to the Minister of Housing's statement and congratulate her. The reason I want to congratulate her is that obviously she's the first cabinet member of this government to recognize that the Progressive Conservatives have the answer to the problems of this province. The fact that her press release is called New Directions for Non-Profit Housing is something that we over in the Progressive Conservative caucus of course welcome.

If the other members of your cabinet would like to see the other answers to the problems in this province under our New Directions booklet, they're more than welcome. You don't even have to phone the 1-800 number; we will personally deliver them to you.

This is another typical Bob Rae government announcement. It is absolutely nothing to do with solving a very serious problem, that of affordable housing in this province. How many times do we have to say, over and over again, that announcements don't do it? Reinventing the statements that have been made in their number of throne speeches through further announcements in this House do not create one single more affordable unit.

I think it's very unfortunate for the public of this province to have to listen to these kinds of statements. I guess the best

part is that for the most part, the general public doesn't hear these statements. They don't have to put up with what we have to put up with, which is a Minister of Housing standing in the House reading a statement that essentially doesn't mean anything.

The fact is that this minister is refusing to have a meeting with someone in this province who may just happen to have a solution for affordable housing. I'm not talking about somebody who wants to create a basement apartment or an accessory apartment, because we've already said very clearly that this is not our solution for affordable housing. I personally do not believe that the solution for affordable housing in Ontario is a view from a basement window.

There is an organization called Toronto Habitat for Humanity Inc. This group is made up totally of volunteers. At no cost to the taxpayer, they have already created one house in Toronto. They have many worthwhile solutions that they would like to convey to this Minister of Housing. I would like to tell you that the chairperson of their board of directors is a Mr