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

November 20, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L125 - Wed 20 Nov 1996 / Mer 20 Nov 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTERS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

GREY CUP

TVONTARIO

CONTROL OF SMOKING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WEEK

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAEDIATRIC CARE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

YOUNG OFFENDERS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ACADEMIC TESTING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

CHILD CARE

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

FIRE SAFETY

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

PAEDIATRIC CARE

WORKFARE

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

CHILD CARE

SCHOOL BOARDS

RENT REGULATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION

SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PAROLE SYSTEM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOXING DAY SHOPPING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE LENDEMAIN DE NOËL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Today we are joined by firefighters from throughout Ontario, including those from the city of North York, who have gathered here to express their concern about the policies of the government.

With the introduction of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, the government has chosen to disregard the legitimate concern expressed by firefighters throughout the so-called consultation process which the government indicates led to this legislation.

Firefighters are dismayed by the provisions of the bill, such as significant changes to the classification of management personnel, the resulting changes to their collective bargaining units, modifications to hours of work, and wage issues. These are some of the main concerns about the Fire Protection and Prevention Act being brought to Queen's Park today.

Furthermore, Ontario firefighters are also here today to share with us the serious reservations they have with regard to proposed changes to workers' compensation legislation by the Conservative government. In both instances, these changes will have significant impacts upon firefighters and how they do their jobs.

I call upon the Premier, the Solicitor General and his colleagues in the government caucus to listen and act upon the concern being expressed by the dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line every day in this province.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yesterday, the Minister of Community and Social Services, in an incredible fit of arrogance, told this House that the biggest threat to women in this province is the size of the deficit. What a vile thing that is to say. Tell that to the families of the 29 women killed over the past year by abusive spouses. I really hope the minister didn't really mean what she said and that she will rise in the House today, withdraw that remark and offer an apology to the people of this province.

Since the minister raised the issue of the deficit, perhaps she could cut back on the sanctimony and explain why, if the deficit is such a preoccupation of this government, you are going to borrow $20 billion to give a tax break to your rich friends. What a twisted sense of priorities it takes to cut back on services for abused women so that the top-earning chief executive officer of a bank, who earns $3.1 million annually, will get a tax break of $206,000 over the four years it takes to implement this tax cut.

Evictions are up. Bankruptcies are up. Food bank use is up. The strain on social service agencies, themselves dealing with reduced funding, is way up. It's high time this government stopped blaming others and took responsibility for the plight of the vulnerable in this province.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I would like to draw Drug Awareness Week to the attention of members. This year's campaign theme says it all: Choice, Consequence and Responsibility.

The abuse of alcohol and other drugs touches the lives of 74% of the people in Ontario. It is estimated that it costs $3.3 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. Of particular concern is the use of alcohol and other drugs by youth. According to a 1995 Addiction Research Foundation study, the use of substances is increasing among students in grades 7 through 13. This includes alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.

The Ontario Drug Awareness Partnership includes the Ontario Drug Awareness Partnership; the Addiction Research Foundation; Concerns, Canada; the Council on Drug Abuse; the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association; Parents Against Drugs; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; St Vincent de Paul; and some 75 Drug Awareness Week committees.

The Ministry of Health awarded a grant of $110,000 to the Ontario Drug Awareness Partnership to produce campaign materials and assist local committees with community events. Over 72,000 campaign items have been distributed to Drug Awareness Week committees throughout the province. With this help, communities can address substance abuse locally.

GREY CUP

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As most members of the House know, on Sunday the city of Hamilton will be hosting the Grey Cup. It's the first time since 1972 that the premier Canadian sporting event has been held in our great city.

This event could not have occurred without the work of many citizens, the hundreds of people in the community who have worked hard over the past year, including the co-chairs of the Grey Cup committee, Ron Foxcroft and Marnie Paikin. They and their committee have worked endlessly to ensure that this Grey Cup festival on Sunday becomes the best the CFL has ever seen.

There are many activities that are planned, including parades, beer tents and multicultural festivals. There's a week of fun not only for football fans but for Hamiltonians, Ontarians and Canadians from coast to coast. We certainly welcome our friends from out west to the city of Hamilton, our friends from Edmonton and the rest of western Canada who will be joining us for the game, as well as our friends from Toronto.

It was a pleasure, and I say this reluctantly, the Argos won last Sunday because it will ensure that this Sunday's game will certainly be a greater success, having a large contingent from the city of Toronto, and they will be welcomed with the usual warm Hamilton reception that Toronto fans get to Ivor Wynne Stadium.

I want to thank Mayor Morrow, city council and the organizing committee for the great work they've done and invite everyone across this province and in this Legislature to participate in the events for the rest of the week and enjoy a wonderful Grey Cup on Sunday. I won't tell you who I'm cheering for, but it may not be Toronto.

TVONTARIO

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): All members of the House will know the valuable contribution that TVO makes to education and culture in this province, particularly to children's programming, so most of us are quite alarmed at the prospect that this government may be contemplating privatizing that television network.

I am also, though, concerned and want to join with others who have raised the issue of what this might mean for the communication services of the Wawatay Native Communications Society that serves 20,000 first nations people living in the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation area.

Wawatay, as you may know, is a non-profit, multimedia organization that serves the Ojicree of that region. They use the signal of TVO for their distribution system. The distance education serves students in 23 first nations, helping them to complete their high school education without having to leave their home communities. Without the important service provided by TVO on a non-profitable basis, this very important service could be jeopardized.

I hope that all members will join in ensuring that TVO remains and continues to serve the aboriginal people.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I rise today to address the House concerning our most serious public health problem in Ontario: smoking.

Since the early 1990s, smoking rates among children have been increasing sharply. I believe that all members will agree that as a society we should do everything possible to discourage children from starting this filthy habit that many adults find impossible to kick.

Recently Dr Richard Schabas, chief medical officer of health for Ontario, released a report on smoking entitled Tobacco: Sounding the Alarm. The report recommends that the provincial government make all places where children go smoke-free, set up a toll-free telephone number to help people quit, help sport and cultural organizations replace tobacco sponsorships at their events and make all workplaces smoke-free. I personally believe that we should set a goal of making all workplaces smoke-free by the year 2000. This would give workplaces a reasonable time frame to adapt to the change.

Governments should also consider making cigarettes more expensive through the reinstatement of taxes on tobacco. Most children do not have a great deal of money, and more expensive cigarettes mean that fewer children will start smoking and fewer children will keep smoking until they're addicted.

The minister and his chief medical officer of health have my complete support in adopting any measures that would prevent children from becoming smoking addicts and dying prematurely from lung cancer, heart disease and strokes.

I urge the government to take immediate action to begin implementing these recommendations.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This morning I attended a rally on the front lawn of the Legislature to recognize national Child Day and to remember the tragic death of James Lonnee, who was murdered this summer while being held in detention. The rally was held to increase awareness of the abuse our children are suffering in Ontario jails.

It is often said that a nation is best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Ontario as of late has a failing grade. From the Bluewater riot to documented beatings and abuse of young offenders at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and the death of James Lonnee, we in Ontario have failed our children.

When our children break the law and are sentenced we expect them to be returned to family and community whole and safe, and hopefully, with the right treatment program, better for the experience. What we don't expect is our children being returned to us in a pine box.

We hear and see abuse of children from around the world on our nightly newscasts and we cringe at this. I think we become smug sometimes and feel these things don't happen here. Well, they do happen here and are still happening today.

We need a public inquiry into how Ontario still handles its young offenders. It is time for the Solicitor General to take responsibility for young offenders and that we have that inquiry.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WEEK

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This week is Restorative Justice Week all over Canada. It is a week that marks our efforts to try and deal with the issue of those who have committed crimes in our society, have been convicted for those crimes, have been incarcerated and then have to make their way back into society.

It is important for us in Ontario this year, as we mark this week, to recognize how seriously the current government is failing in its task to add to the restorative nature of justice. Rather, we see a government bent on a punitive measure of justice which does not seek to reunite those who have committed crimes against society back into the community, a government that is determined to blame, that refuses to protect the prisoners who are within their own custody and that constantly tries to dodge its responsibility.

It is particularly poignant that in the middle of this week, a day that is also national Child Day, we have a government that continues to avoid the responsibility it has for dealing with alleged beatings and the death of a child in custody in this province. It is important for us all, as legislators in this place, to insist that the Solicitor General and the government assume their responsibility.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Twenty-five years ago the first female pages were appointed to the Ontario Legislature. This was an important day for all of Ontario and, more important, for the four young women from the county of Durham.

Christine Tukendorf, Betsy Scott, Dianna Tax and Annette Hoekstra were the first female pages. Alex Carruthers was the MPP for Durham at that time. The criterion to be a page was that they had to be an outstanding student. That tradition continues today. From that time, all pages, male and female, have made a significant contribution to the routines and traditions of this Legislature.

Today I am pleased to welcome Jacqueline Bakker, a student from Knox Christian School in Bowmanville. Jacqueline is the first female page from Durham East since my election. I would also like to welcome Mr and Mrs Will Bakker, Jacqueline's parents, who are present in the gallery today.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing the 25th anniversary of the first female pages appointed to the Ontario Legislature.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I rise to inform the House that later today I will table amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act that will remove Boxing Day from the list of days that most retail establishments must be closed.

The bill I will table, called the Boxing Day Shopping Act, will end the confusion that now reigns on the day after Christmas. Store owners will now be free to decide whether they will be open or closed that day and consumers will have the choice of whether to shop or not.

Also, employees will have the choice of whether to work or not. The bill ensures that the right of employees to refuse to work on Boxing Day will be protected through amendments to the Employment Standards Act.

As a government, we have always said that we want Ontario to be open for business. Now people will be able to do business on what is often the biggest shopping day of the year without worrying about being charged with an offence, and the police can focus on their primary job, fighting crime.

This is also a job creation measure as it will increase hours for Ontario's retail workers. It has always been the position of this government that less regulation means more jobs. We hope to have this bill passed into law in time for this coming Boxing Day.

In addition, in the new year we will transfer the responsibility for this legislation to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations where it has always belonged.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank Mr Tim Hudak, MPP for Niagara South, for his diligent work on this issue over the past year and a half.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Well, Minister, that's quite a statement. All we seem to be getting is sort of cheesecake statements around here, and I think our caucus is asking "Where's the beef?" from this government.

As you know, we've got the stands packed here with firefighters today who are coming and talking to members of the Legislative Assembly. I and the rest of the members of my caucus were expecting an announcement on that, and specifically the deletion of

section 9 of Bill 84, the firefighters' act. These are the onerous labour relations aspects to this bill that's a poison pill that's killing this bill. It's hurting our firefighters in Ontario, and it's going to hurt fire protection in this province.

We're expecting you to come up with something of substance today. Where is the beef? Where are the other government initiatives? Where's the WCB bill we've been waiting for? Where's the rent control bill? Where's the big Metro bill? None of this is coming through, and I bet the House leader here, with a couple of weeks coming before Christmas, is going to want to rush through all this legislation when we could be starting to debate this today. We're not getting this at all.

As far as shopping on Boxing Day is concerned, I'll tell you I don't think people are going to be shopping for Christmas this year, let alone Boxing Day, because there's no jobs, there's no money, and the retailers know that.

This government believes in the trickle-down theory: "We're going to give back this tax rebate to people." Well, they're not spending it. And you know why? Because they are afraid for their jobs. They're not even sure they are going to be employed the next day, because their neighbour who used to work for the Ontario government, she isn't employed any more. So people are afraid and they're not spending. The whole thing is backfiring.

Saying that retailers can legally open on Boxing Day -- the good folks of Ontario aren't going to be there, or maybe they're going to be waiting this year and will do all their Christmas shopping after the fact on Boxing Day. Maybe it is a good thing for the retailers that he's done that.

The people of Ontario can't afford today to pay full value for all their goods because they're just very afraid for their jobs. You've pulled out millions and millions of dollars from the Ontario economy and the people of Ontario are suffering because of that. You're cutting their jobs and the economy is starting to lag. To say that this one little initiative to now legally allow stores to open on Boxing Day is going to help create jobs in the economy, this one day a year, isn't going to do it. This isn't going to do it at all.

Yesterday you came in with a little pat-on-the-back announcement saying that your campaign manager was doing a very good job on the parole board in not keeping all the bad guys out on the street any more.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Was that his campaign manager?

Mr Ramsay: Well, his campaign manager is the person who's doing this, I think; a very highly trained individual, I'm sure, who also knows how to run campaigns very successfully down in Leeds-Grenville.

We're not getting the substance. We're not hearing about the truth of Ipperwash. We're not getting the investigations from the Elgin-Middlesex beatings, and we know the beatings were there because the child advocate has documented those beatings. We're not hearing that.

We're not hearing on a number of issues from the Solicitor General the job that he should be doing. If you had been here just a while ago, I made a statement in this House about a rally that was held outside today. It's national Child Day. Specifically it was held in memory of the death of James Lonnee. We are not getting to the bottom of this issue.

You stubbornly have refused on every issue we've brought before this House to hold a proper, open and accountable public inquiry so the people of Ontario would finally get to know what's really going on in your ministry and also to finally find out who's in charge of your ministry, because it's apparent you're an absentee minister when it comes to running that ministry.

Minister, what I say to you today is, this is nice fluff, it's nice icing on the cake, but we'd like to see some real substance from you. We'd like to see you doing your job to make sure there's proper police protection, and now that your government has made the mistake of bringing in video slot machines all over this province, to make sure the protection is there so that organized crime doesn't get into every community right across this province. That's what we're looking to you for.

You were the tough guy over on this side in opposition, saying you were going to straighten all this stuff around, and all we get are piece-of-fluff announcements here. We want the public announcements, the public inquiries on these incidents that have happened in Ontario.

With the firefighters here today, we'd like to see a deletion of

section 9 of Bill 84 to get those onerous Labour Relations Act pieces out of Bill 84 so that Ontario firefighters can do their job with the respect they've always had. They've never had a job action in this province, they've never put a life at jeopardy in this province, and they never will. You should not insult them like this.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's becoming a habit for this minister to stand up and make announcements to try to divert people's attention from the very poor job he is doing in running his ministry and the number of outstanding issues that are there. The minister is smiling and laughing. He thinks it's funny that the people of Ontario find the job he has been doing absolutely despicable in terms of real protection.

We have a minister who stands up and talks about the Retail Business Holidays Act as though, first of all, it were needed. As we all know, the act was knocked down and it is not necessary to have a separate act on this. This is real fluff, real window dressing.

For this minister to stand up and try to claim that this act is going to create jobs -- "This is a job-creating measure," he says -- is ridiculous, because it may add a few more hours to a week, given the kind of part-time economy that is building in this province. It is absolute nonsense. It is completely anti-small business. It is particularly geared to the large corporate entities that are trying to take over small business in this country. It is for the large operations that can afford to stay open and can afford not to have time with their families.

It is not for the small business people who have very little time to spend with their families anywhere and who cannot compete with the kind of wealth and privilege that larger corporations have.

This is not a happy kind of a situation and to suggest, as this minister does, that this is going to increase the consumer spending of the population of Ontario, as my colleague from Timiskaming pointed out, the lack of confidence that the people of Ontario have that is being reflected in poor retail sales is not going to be resolved by your adding one more day to the retail calendar in this province. What is needed on the part of the government is a real effort to understand that people are not buying because they are not sure they will have a job.

Those people who work in government, those people who work in municipalities, all those operations that are dependent upon the kinds of grants they have from government, ought to be wary of whether or not they'll have a job tomorrow, or whenever the finance minister gets around to making his next economic statement. Everyone in this province is waiting with bated breath to know when the next shoe is going to drop and how many jobs will disappear as a result. If this minister wants to pretend that this useless act, adding one more day to the retail calendar, is going to make any difference to consumer confidence, he's dreaming.

One of the most offensive pieces of this particular statement is the comment about how this will save policing, will allow the police to get back to their primary job of fighting crime. Well, every time this minister starts talking in this vein we know he is trying to divert the attention of the people of Ontario from the very real problems that are faced under the various operations that come under this minister. My colleague from Timiskaming mentioned a number of them: the Ipperwash affair; the issue around youthful offenders; and a long saga of events --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Sorry, member for London Centre. Can I get some order, please? It is very difficult to hear the response. Thank you.

Mrs Boyd: -- the long saga of unresolved issues in this province, including the Ipperwash affair, including the treatment of young offenders since February 29 in this system, and, for all we know, at other times; the ignoring by this minister of the fact that the many reports he has asked for have not been handed in: the Drinkwalter report on the parole board; the report on Bluewater; the various reports he said he would consult with people on that he hasn't even released.

Yet he has the nerve to stand up in this place and try and present himself as bringing forward a bill today that has meaning to the people of Ontario, the people who are really concerned about issues around justice in this province.

This minister ought to be aware that, although the protection is there under the Employment Standards Act now for employees who might be forced to work on Boxing Day, we are looking at that whole act being under review. Employees in this province are in danger of having many of the rights they currently enjoy under the Employment Standards Act removed. How can we have any confidence that this right will not also be removed?

We have little respect for the statement that the minister has made today and want to expose it for what it is: window dressing.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today members of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario. Please join me in welcoming them.

Also today, from Prescott and Russell County Board of Education and Pleasant Corners Public School, two grade 8 students, Andrew Phillips and Andrew Ferguson. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that you would want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Her Worship Mayor Hazel McCallion is also present in the House today.

The Speaker: Welcome to the mayor of Mississauga as well. I know full well that we didn't introduce her to know she was in the gallery. Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAEDIATRIC CARE

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Today, on national Child Day, my question is for the Minister of Health. I want to talk about 18-month-old Quincy Mutter. She was born with a heart condition. At the time it was not considered serious, but over that period of time she's been admitted to Sick Children's Hospital numerous times with high temperatures of as much as 104 degrees and a number of viral infections.

The situation is obviously serious and the parents are concerned. The family physician has stated that the child needs to see a specialist. They say that the baby's weak heart has made her susceptible to all of these health problems. For over a week they have searched to find a paediatric cardiologist and have not been able to find one. Mr and Mrs Mutter are in the gallery today. They are scared and they are mad. I'd like to ask the minister, what does he suggest they do?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member didn't have to wait till question period to tell me about this case. By simply telling me earlier today, I could have already been working on it on behalf of the parents. My office, along with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, will make every effort to find a paediatric cardiologist for the child if that is what's being requested by the child's physician.

Ms Castrilli: That's just the problem. They have gone to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They have asked for the referral service. They have been given two names, one of a doctor who has already refused to see them, one of another who said, "Well, maybe in April or March." Quite frankly, they can't wait that long. They are extremely concerned about their child. This is a nightmare for them and for parents in this situation. The responsibility is yours. What will you do to end this crisis?

Hon Mr Wilson: The responsibility of providing medical services in this province is shared between the government and the physicians of the province. You've not said the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Hold on. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: A paediatric cardiologist at the best of times in this province and this country is a very busy physician. I don't know the reasons why the two cardiologists who have been contacted by the honourable member or by the family which the honourable member is representing today or the family's doctor can't see this particular patient, but I'd be happy to look into this matter immediately.

Ms Castrilli: The Mutters will certainly be very happy to hear that, and we hope we can get some solutions and not just empty rhetoric. But the problem remains: We can't keep coming to the Legislature with individual situations. There is a crisis out there, a crisis that the minister must address.

It is unfortunate that even the editorial staff at the Medical Post in yesterday's editorial said that for the first time in their history they've called for the resignation of a Minister of Health.

This is very serious. This is a crisis. I hope the Mutters will be able to sleep better tonight but, Minister, you've got to do something. Frankly, if you are not capable of doing it, will you not ask the Premier to step in and resolve this situation as quickly as possible for the health of all our children?

Hon Mr Wilson: Unless the member is prepared to say why the paediatric cardiologists can't see this particular patient, it's very difficult for me to answer. I can tell you that at the best of times in the history of this province and this country, paediatric cardiologists are very busy doctors. She's not indicating in her question today that it has anything to do with the current relations between the government and the OMA. As you know, we're at the table trying to solve those problems.

So I'd be happy to look into this matter, as we do on a regular basis for patients who have difficulty finding a particular specialist. That's part of the services offered by the case workers at the Ministry of Health, it's part of the services offered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and that system was put in place many years ago. It was the same system the Liberals used when they were in office and the same system the NDP used, and I'd be happy to use it in this case.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance had the audacity to say that his tax cut had no effect on child poverty, even though we have some 350,000 children who are currently listed as living in poverty in Ontario.

The family support plan we know is a crucial part of the fight against child poverty in Ontario, but we also know that this program is now in utter shambles and money is just not getting to the kids for basics like food and rent.

The minister says his new family responsibility office is up and running. If this is true, can he tell me why a request for proposals on a contract to analyse the family support plan restructuring program was only issued two weeks ago? Why wasn't this done before he closed the regional offices and left women and children to fend for themselves?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member. The technology that exists in the family support plan is a system known as MECA. MECA is a system that has been overloaded, and the technology was deemed by the auditor back in 1993 to be ineffective. The former government didn't want to deal with answering the complaints of the auditor. What we are now doing, as part of the restructuring of the plan, will be to upgrade the technology as the --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Out the door, Charles. You've got no credibility.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Lake Nipigon, it's easier for me if you heckle in your seat rather than standing. Thank you.

Ms Castrilli: I want to be very clear. This document deals with the basics of the new office. It talks about what computers they will use. It even says the technology won't be purchased until June 1997. It's been four months since the Attorney General closed down the regional offices, fired hundreds of staff, lost or delayed thousands and thousands of files, and only now, in November, are we thinking about the kinds of computers to buy, and it won't be finished until June. That's another six months away. I don't think the Attorney General's answer is satisfactory.

How can he sit idle when he knows that the situation is serious and that children are living in poverty and that it's his ministry that's responsible? How does he answer that?

Hon Mr Harnick: We are continuing to make use of the existing technology that was part of the way the old plan operated. We're now making the transition to the new plan, and as part of that process we will be implementing and adding the technology that was recommended three years ago by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms Castrilli: We've heard these answers before, and the plan isn't getting any better. The fact is that women and children are suffering, and I'd like to give you a specific example. There's a woman in Ottawa called Céline Dorion. She called our office. She stated that last summer she was interviewed by the CBC as part of a show on deadbeat dads because her own husband owes her something in the nature of $20,000. Last week, after hearing nothing for months, she finally heard from the family support plan. They told her, and this is a direct quote, "People who do interviews against us are not a priority." That ministry official then hung up on her.

So here we are with Christmas just a few weeks away, and Céline Dorion is justifiably worried about her children. She has had no money for months. She is owed $20,000. Her kids are concerned about rent and food, let alone the luxury of gifts.

Will the Attorney General stand in his place today and admit that the family support plan restructuring has been bungled?

Hon Mr Harnick: Without knowing any of the details of the particular case, it sounds very much as a case that has been --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You are bullies and they are bullying people too.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, order.

Hon Mr Harnick: It sounds like a case that has been in difficulty for quite some time.

I can tell you that only 23% of all cases that are now in the family support plan are in full compliance. The bill that we will be introducing today will go a long way to helping someone who's had long-standing problems with this plan. It will allow families who don't want to be in the plan to opt out, it will make use of the new technology and, most importantly, it will provide enforcement tools that will finally begin to collect some of the $1 billion in arrears that has been allowed to accumulate.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Solicitor General. Today is national Child Day. Members on this side of the House are wearing black ribbons in memory of James Lonnee, a youth who was murdered at Wellington Detention Centre, and in memory of the alleged abuse of other youth at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and Bluewater.

This morning there was a rally to call for justice for children and youth in detention. It was a plea for your government to comply with minimum international rights standards for youth who are held in custody. Youth in the care of your ministry have been beaten, mistreated and verbally abused. James Lonnee came forward and tried to tell people about what was happening in your ministry. He paid the ultimate price: He was murdered.

Minister, you have given us no clear indication that youth in the care of your ministry are any safer today than they were six months ago. There have been no public independent assessments of what's happening in your ministry. When are you going to provide us with detailed reports so that you may be held accountable for all the things that are going on in the corrections part of your ministry?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I have indicated with respect to the Bluewater matter, the other matters, the tragic death of James Lonnee, that we know there are police investigations involved in those situations. They're not yet complete. Until they are complete we cannot finalize the internal reviews as well. Certainly I would like to see those completed as much as anyone in this province would, but the police, in my view, are moving in an expeditious way to try to conclude their investigations and we will simply have to await the conclusion of police investigations before the other internal reports can be made public and completed.

Mr Hampton: We know all about this minister sending out directives and we know all about his calling for this investigation and that bit of research. The fact of the matter is that nothing has been done. This minister gives assurances and then young people in his custody are murdered. He gives assurances and young people in his custody are beaten and abused.

Your assurances that your ministry has sent out directives and instituted new training isn't good enough any more. You aren't trusted and you aren't believed by a whole large group of the public out there. A public inquiry is necessary to ensure the safety of children and youth in your custody.

I ask you again, what have you done to reassure parents and the public that children and youth in your care in correctional facilities are safe from the kind of abuse alleged to have occurred at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and Bluewater and the tragic death of James Lonnee? What have you done to take care of these problems?

Hon Mr Runciman: I have indicated in the past that we're moving on a whole range of fronts related to the corrections system, both on the young offender side and on the adult side of the system as well, new training programs that in terms of the review and hiring practices of correctional officers are also going to put them into streams so they can specialize with respect to young offender training or adult training if they're going to serve in one or the other of those divisions.

We're also looking at a dedicated facility for young offenders which will be the first in this province to try and alleviate overcrowding problems that have existed with previous governments, which they failed utterly to deal with.

We are looking at complete changes with respect to infrastructure in the corrections system, which again the previous governments failed to deal with in a substantive way. So I think we're moving in a very substantive way, a very meaningful way, to correct problems that have existed in this system for many years.

Mr Hampton: The press conference was held this morning. June Callwood, who's a founder of Justice for Children, was there. She doesn't believe you any more, Minister. Mary Birdsell, James Lonnee's lawyer, doesn't believe you any more. Les Horne, a former child advocate, doesn't believe you any more. This is your record. You have not released the child advocate's report. Your internal investigation keeps being postponed. No senior officials in your ministry have been disciplined as a result of your not being informed of the allegations of abuse at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

You are being sued by the managers who were the subject of those allegations for your inaction. You are being sued by the youth who allege mistreatment within your facilities, and you are seen by the employees, parents, youth and the general public as being both unable and unwilling to take these matters seriously.

You're the minister. You must take responsibility. Will you today commit to a public inquiry so the public can be made aware of the true facts that led to the death of James Lonnee?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm sure the leader of the third party is well aware that when a death in custody occurs there is an automatic inquest, and that inquest will occur with respect to James Lonnee's death.

The member makes a suggestion or an allegation that the general public are upset with the way this government or this minister are dealing with justice issues. I want to say, quite the contrary. That's not the feedback I'm hearing, not the feedback the members on this side of the House are hearing at all. In fact, they're very much pleased with the direction we're taking on justice issues, dramatically different, I agree, with respect to the member from the third party.

These are needs that have not been addressed for many years with respect to, for example, more focus on victims of crime. We've done a host of things to deal with victims. You can talk about strengthening the ability of police to deal with law enforcement and the security questions in our communities. We're doing a significant number of meaningful things in this area, much more than the previous two governments did.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General. In order to finance your phoney tax scheme, you decimated the family support plan. You laid off 290 experienced staff, you closed the eight regional support plan offices and now women and children across the province aren't receive the child support payments they used to receive regularly.

Minister, today is national Child Day and you should hear what children from Kitchener said last night about what you have done to the family support plan. These are all messages from children.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Attorney General.

Mr Hampton: This is what those children had to say.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, time's up. Attorney General.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What? What time?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I didn't hold that sign up. The member next to you held the sign up. Your time keeps going.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We are starting to embark upon a transition to a new plan that will start to pay and collect the $960 million that's been allowed to accumulate in payments that women and children are not receiving.

Fifty thousand phone calls a day have been coming through to the plan for many years, and those people have not been calling to compliment the plan on getting money to them. It's misleading to say that this problem started yesterday or a couple of months ago. Annually $100 million has gone uncollected because the plan --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary, member for Sudbury East.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): What is misleading is this minister trying to tell people this office would be up and running by the end of October when it won't be operating until at least next year.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole, I heard exactly what the Attorney General said and I heard what the member for Sudbury East said.

I suggest to the member for Sudbury East that you can't accuse the minister of misleading the House. It must be withdrawn.

Ms Martel: Mr Speaker, I'll withdraw it.

This minister can't continue to fool the public and pretend he isn't directly responsible for the financial misery that thousands of women and children are facing across the province now. You, Minister, were directly responsible for laying off 290 staff in August. You were directly responsible for closing the eight regional offices, all this to finance the tax cut on the backs of these women and children who used to receive regular support payments. Maybe you don't want to hear what the kids have to say, but let me tell you some quotes from some of the children we met with last night:

"We need winter clothing and boots and we have to wait for mom's money," said Melissa and Sarah Bell.

"Hi. Help us. Our names are Josh, Amanda and Craig. We need you to send the support to our mom so we can get the clothes, orthodontics, school supplies and glasses. Mom can't do it alone."

"Please send Dad his support. We need school supplies, clothing, boots for winter, and we're hoping that Christmas comes this year. Does it come to your house?" Mike, Amy, Travis and Emily.

I'd like the minister today to tell these children and all other children across the province who are suffering because of your cuts why you are financing tax cuts on the backs of these kids.

Hon Mr Harnick: As I indicated, these are not new problems. We are introducing for second reading a bill that we believe will provide enforcement that for the first time will start to eat into the $100 million that accumulates in debt from this plan each and every year. I tell the honourable member that on November 18 we sent out $1.9 million to 6,104 recipients. That's a plan that is working and getting money out to women and children.

Ms Martel: I don't know whom the minister is trying to kid. Thousands of women and children out there are not receiving their regular support payments. We're getting calls every day in our constituency office from people who are in financial distress because of your cuts. Why don't you assume some responsibility for that?

Let me tell you about some of the bills the women who were at the meeting last night can't pay, since you don't seem to think this is a problem. Susan Murray has a bill from Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro. If she doesn't pay this week, it will be cut off. Louanne Ringle has a bill from Bell Canada. If she doesn't pay this week, her phone service will be cut off. Jane Cardy has a notice here from Waterloo North Hydro, "Pay up this week or your hydro will be cut off." We got a notice to Anne Parker in the Ministry of Community and Social Services saying she should pay her overpayment now. We've got an eviction notice for Jenny McKay because she hasn't been able to pay her rent.

The minister has got to understand that as a direct result of his cuts to staff and his closure of the regional office, families who used to receive regular support payments are now not. What are you going to do about it and why are you financing the tax cut on the backs of --

The Speaker: Thank you. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: We are endeavouring to continue to increase payments on a daily basis. We've done that by a 25% increase in --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Tell that to her landlord.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Tell that to this woman's and her kids' landlord.

Ms Martel: Her hydro's going to be cut off next week.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a lot of people coming into my office who are in similar circumstances because of your --

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I'm warning you, as well as the members for Cochrane North, Sudbury East and Welland-Thorold. I'm telling you right now, that's the warning. Please come to order. That's the warning.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My office has just received a call from the office of the Minister of Health. The caller was very angry that we had dared raise the matter in the House without giving prior notice. That is bullying tactics. Just for the record, the family did call the --

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. A point of privilege?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's question period, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I understand it's question period, member for Kenora. It was your member who stood on the point of privilege. Point of privilege, Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I witnessed the phone call. That did not occur as the honourable member accused. The honourable member's office said they knew nothing about the case. We're now on the phone, right there, to the paediatric cardiologists at Sick Kids and we're trying to do the best we can for the family.

The Speaker: Thank you. I am in the process --

Interjection.

The Speaker: If you want to take another point of privilege, go ahead.

Ms Castrilli: In fairness, that doesn't deal with the point of privilege. My office was called and told that the minister's office was very angry that we were raising this matter in the House without prior notice. Since when do we need prior notice --

The Speaker: Member for Downsview, it's not even a point of privilege and, quite frankly, it's using up very valuable time. I understand that it's -- I would prefer to deal with this after question period, and it would probably suit everyone's needs.

Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: We are taking steps to improve this plan so that we can get money to women and children and --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): There's the rest of the bills, Charlie. There's the bills from last night.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr Christopherson: There's the bills.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm warning you to come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members of the third party, would you please come to order. Thank you.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Charlie, pay up. Pay up. Women and children --

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I have now warned you as well.

Mr Pouliot: But they don't have a voice, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: And now I'm warning you again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: As my record in this Legislature will attest, I'm a very patient person. New question.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): There are women and children --

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie -- I am going to name the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: Well, you named everybody else.

The Speaker: Well, then, I will name the member for Sault Ste Marie.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a new question concerning the Ipperwash incident. You will recall, Premier, that in September 1995, three months after you became Premier, for the first time ever in Canada, a first nations person was killed in a land dispute. There are many questions about your government's role in this affair.

What we do know is that your member, Mr Beaubien, the Conservative member for the area, told the police at the command post, four hours before the shooting, that he had sent a fax to the Premier advising of his intentions and that he wanted a return call regarding his intentions. This fax becomes very important. On November 6, Premier, you said all that was in that fax from Mr Beaubien were things that were on the news that night. On November 6, Premier, you said you would release a copy of the fax that Mr Beaubien sent. Will you table that fax now?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have not seen the fax, first of all. I don't believe it was a fax to me. I understood there was a fax that had come into the office, or at least there was the allegation of that. My understanding is that any of the faxes have not contained anything that really wasn't public knowledge. I personally have no objection -- you can have all the faxes you want -- but we have lawyers looking at whether release of any information jeopardizes any of the court cases that are there. If they determine it does not, we'll be happy to release it before.

Mr Phillips: A week and a half ago, Premier, you promised you would look into this matter and you would get back to the House quickly on the matter. You promised you would look at it and you would table those faxes. Frankly, one can only reach the conclusion that your staff have looked at them and they do not confirm what you told the House on November 6. You told the House on November 6 that all that was in those faxes was what was on the daily newscast and that you would have no difficulty in releasing them.

There is only one conclusion we can reach: Your staff have looked at those faxes, they contain privileged information, they confirm that Mr Beaubien, representing your government, four hours before the shooting, leaning over the shoulders of our OPP who were trying to do a job -- he was there daily, constantly, leaning on their shoulders, telling the police he was in touch with you, Premier, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. On November 6, you promised to release those faxes. What other conclusion can we reach but that you are trying to cover up what is in those faxes?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me set the record straight on a number of things you have indicated. Mr Beaubien was not representing me nor my office nor the ministry; Mr Beaubien was representing his constituents, both native and non-native, who had very grave concerns. There were concerns about safety, there were concerns about the park, there were concerns about neighbours adjoining the park. So Mr Beaubien, quite appropriately, I believe, was seeking all the information he possibly could.

I can tell you I think there's a freedom of information request that has come in and is following the normal process, not only from the freedom --

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You said you were going to release the fax.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, I'm warning you now. Please come to order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Earlier this week she tried to sweeten up the workfare deal for municipalities by promising to finance them to the tune of $450 million. Is $450 million to implement workfare going to put food on the plates of the one in three Metro Toronto children who rely on social assistance? Is that going to put roofs over the heads of children in the 13 Toronto families who are evicted from their home every working day as a result of taking a 22% cut to their social assistance?

Tell us how your workfare program is going to address the vicious crisis of child poverty and child hunger here in Toronto and across Ontario.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member across the way may wish to cast his mind back to some months ago when we announced Ontario Works, when we talked about the fact that we had a budget for $450 million to implement Ontario Works because we believe that our municipal partners deserve the financial support. I would like to announce, while I'm on my feet, that we have the 10th community, Oxford county, which has just been approved to join the other communities in offering Ontario Works across the province.

I believe that $450 million is a worthwhile investment to get individuals on social assistance back into a job. Our government believes that the best support for any family is a job, and that is the goal of this plan.

Mr Kormos: The minister should know that an organization called Campaign 2000 released a proposal this week for a social investment fund that would provide a decent standard of living for all children.

This government has $450 million to spend on their workfare program. They've got $17 million to spend on their Web net hi-tech ad program. They've got $22 billion that they're going to spend to finance a tax cut for their rich friends.

Minister, today is national Child Day. Do you care enough about the hungry children in this municipality and province to call Ottawa today and commit Ontario to participating in a social investment fund to eradicate child poverty in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government prefers to measure our commitment by the actions and the steps we are taking rather than by the hyperbole we are getting from the other side of the House today, with all due respect to their concern, and I know they are legitimately concerned.

Mr Kormos: No. Children are hungry. One in three children in Toronto is on social assistance and you cut their allowance. You are starving children. You are putting them on the streets.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Welland-Thorold, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We do believe that a decent standard of living is extremely important for families --

Mr Kormos: Children are on the streets and you don't give a tinker's dam.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, you'll have to come to order or I'm going to name you next time. Thank you.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We do believe that a decent standard of living is extremely important for families and children. We are attempting very hard to maintain those programs that help do that despite the $2 billion we're losing from Ottawa --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): When is it going to happen in Ontario?

Mr Kormos: You're not prepared to respond to the crisis. Speaker, children are hungry in this province and living in poverty at an unprecedented level and she's not prepared to do anything about it -- $22 billion.

The Speaker: I've warned the member for Welland-Thorold a number of times and I have no option left but to name the member for Welland-Thorold. Mr Peter Kormos.

Mr Kormos: What about the starving children? You don't care. You're putting them out on the street.

Mr Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's unfortunate that my colleague across the way is not going to be in the House to hear our commitment to working with Ottawa.

The Speaker: It's a fairly long-held tradition in this place that we do not comment on whether someone is in or not in the House. I caution the minister that is inappropriate.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If I have caused the honourable member offence, I withdraw that comment.

The honourable member made reference to children being hungry, which is one of the reasons we have invested $5 million in partnership with the private sector for a breakfast program. The members opposite may be concerned because their program wasn't working. We want to make sure ours is.

The final point that I think is worth mentioning is that we are quite interested in working with Ottawa, despite the pressures they're putting on our budget, to have an integrated child benefit. We would like to talk to them about that because we believe that may well be an appropriate solution for child poverty in this country.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Ontario spends more on education per pupil than almost any other jurisdiction in the world. My question to you is: Do the results from this international test prove that our students' performance match our spending?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Scarborough East for the question. I hope my colleagues opposite share our interest in and our concern for the test results of students in this province. In fact, the results of the third international math and science test were released today. In this test over half a million young people, nine and 13 years old, from 41 countries participated, including Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Ontario as provinces inside Canada.

Unfortunately, I have to report that the TIMS results confirmed the trend of other international and national tests over the last few years. While Ontario students hovered around the international average, our students fell below the Canadian average in both subjects at both age levels, a performance that I'm sure is not satisfactory to anyone concerned and something we wish to address.

Mr Gilchrist: When our IAEP test results were released in 1992, then Premier Bob Rae was quoted in the paper as saying: "The tests show clearly that we have problems. I don't think anyone in the school system can look for excuses." He said: "It's a question of focus and a question of how we can get the system to do its job."

Minister, national and international tests show that Ontario produces average students. I don't think, and I certainly would hope that no other member in this House believes, that these results are acceptable. What are we doing to ensure that Ontario's goal of being the best in the world is achieved?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As has been pointed out by the former leader of the now third party when he was Premier, this is a matter of concern, I think, to all the people of Ontario. Certainly it's not a partisan issue and I think it's one that needs to be treated in a non-partisan fashion. I know it's of concern to my colleagues and I know it's of concern to my colleagues across the chamber whom I've talked to privately on this matter.

These results are not an indication that Ontario students are average or that Ontario teachers are average, in fact quite the opposite. But we do believe we need to improve our system of education in Ontario to provide for more exceptional results by our students and to use the talents of our teachers better. We are moving now to establish a rigorous and demanding core curriculum which we believe will help to improve our test results nationally and internationally. We're making sure that our dollars spent on education are focused on the classroom where they make a difference with young people.

And we're certainly enthusiastic about doing testing on an ongoing basis across the province using the EQAO. I believe there'll be a better future for the students of the province of Ontario and I expect those results to go up in the near future.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On this, national Child Day, I have a question to the Minister of Health. It concerns a nine-year-old girl living with her parents on a dairy farm in North Dundas county south of Ottawa. The nine-year-old girl's name is Kayleigh Boyd, and Kayleigh suffers from Rett Syndrome, a very serious neurological disorder that has imposed very significant challenges not only Kayleigh but on her family, which is continuing to care for her in their farm home.

Kayleigh is covered under the Ontario drug benefit program, but there's a problem. The problem is this: She requires a special formula because she's tube-fed. She has to be tube-fed. The special formula contains milk protein and she's allergic to that product. Her doctor, a well-known paediatrician in Ottawa, has prescribed an alternative that is medically acceptable and, as it happens, is cheaper; it's about half the price of that which has been suggested by your officials at the Ontario drug benefit program. But the alternative has not been approved by your officials. Will you, for the health and wellbeing of this nine-year-old girl, use your influence to approve the alternative?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I would be happy to look into the matter. As you know, the Minister of Health doesn't directly approve the alternative. The medical committee that's called the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, which is the same committee that's been around for many years in the province, makes the final determination. I will certainly expedite the process, though.

Mr Conway: Minister, this family is going to extraordinary lengths to look after their nine-year-old daughter at home. They have the option to have that child institutionalized, where the cost would be $80,000 a year and there would be no question about any of this nourishment that nine-year-old Kayleigh must have for her health and wellbeing. If you are part of a Common Sense Revolution, will you use the powers vested in you to rescue this nine-year-old girl and her family from this bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle that continues to cause them so much grief and so much hardship?

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, I will do everything humanly possible to help them.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On a number of occasions in this House I have raised questions to you with respect to the provincial capital funding required for the four child care centres located in Toronto schools that are being rebuilt. I've point out to you that without the capital funding coming from the province, these child care centres will not be rebuilt. There are 200 families that are at risk of losing their child care spaces.

Specifically, though, on October 17 I asked you a question, and I'm quoting from Hansard: "What I would ask from you today is for a commitment that you will agree to meet with the Toronto board officials and the parents of these four centres." Your response: "Either I or my officials would be quite happy to meet with them."

Last week a member of your office staff met with the parents from the Eglinton centre. The other parents were refused admittance to that meeting; the Toronto board was refused admittance to that meeting. In fact, your office has said to those other parents and to the Toronto board that they will not get a meeting. Minister, that's not what you committed to. Will you today commit to me you will instruct your staff to set up such a meeting that either you or they will attend?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the honourable member's concern. Yes, I did give a commitment that either I or my staff would meet with the families involved, and I will instruct them to do so.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate your taking action on this and I hope you will take swift action because, as I pointed out to you, the clock is ticking. We are in danger of losing these child care centres. The architectural plans are going forward. They have to be approved and the school board has to make a decision on what they're going to build and whether there will be a child care centre there or not. It will not happen without the provincial funding.

I've pointed out to you that the $40 million in new operating money that you have put in place in this year's budget which you've put a freeze on and not spent is really just the $40 million in capital that you cancelled. You've got the money sitting there. There are four months left in this annual budget year.

Minister, will you agree to convert $1.6 million of that $40 million from operating into capital? That's all it takes, and you would save the 200 spaces that currently exist. You would make sure these families still have child care for their kids.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member knows, the auditor had raised some concerns about capital spending in the child care area under the previous government, and I guess before I would authorize capital funding, there are some concerns that would need to be addressed.

The first one is that I am not aware of the individual circumstances of these 200 families, but if there are those that need fee subsidy, we are continuing to fund millions of dollars worth of fee subsidy of which Metro unfortunately is not matching its 20% share, so that has increased the waiting list for fee subsidies. Secondly, I understand that if they are parents who can afford to pay what they like to call the full fee, there's a vacancy rate in Toronto of about 2,000 spaces. Both those factors are very important before we take taxpayers' money for more capital spending.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PLAN

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Yesterday you announced one component of this government's equal opportunity plan, a Web site on the Internet.

As the minister knows, I have a keen interest in this area and have been working with Trevor Wilson, an entrepreneur who is pioneering a business case for equity here in Ontario. He has worked with several companies such as IBM and National Grocers and many others. He's also working in countries like South Africa. Mr Wilson is currently developing a Web site, and I wonder how your ministry site will complement the works and efforts of individuals such as Mr Wilson.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'd like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for his question. I know he has a keen interest in and strongly supports this government's plan for equal opportunity.

The site that was announced yesterday is just one component of the equal opportunity plan, but it's based on partnership. There's even a

section on the site which is dedicated to the sharing of best-practice models. This site and further announcements that are going to be made fulfil the promise that we made to the people of Ontario both during the election and last December that equal opportunity is a priority with this government.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Fort York, it may be, in your opinion; it may be. But I need order. Thank you.

Mr Maves: I'm glad that businesses and individuals in my riding will have access to this Web site and the education it will provide them so that they can take advantage of the economic benefits the plan has to offer. I wonder, Minister, if you can explain how the equal opportunity plan and the Web site differ from the previous government's approach.

Hon Ms Mushinski: I'd be happy to answer that question. The opposition said that business wasn't interested in equal opportunity. They couldn't have been more wrong. In fact, business has bought into equal opportunity in a big way. Over 125 organizations and individuals, such as Manulife Financial, IBM Canada, the Canadian Abilities Foundation, Motorola Canada and the Richard Ivey school of economics and business at Western, have participated in the development and creation of this Web site. Indeed, it is their Web site. They weren't coerced into participating, they weren't threatened with fines and pending legislation, yet they --

The Speaker: Thank you.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question to the Solicitor General. It's another example of how this government is lowering safety standards to save money.

I want to ask you today, Solicitor General, why you and the Ontario fire marshal are putting hundreds of thousands of Ontario tenants who live in pre-1976 apartments at risk. As you know, the retrofit

section of the Ontario fire code allows for unrated solid wood doors, as they give good protection, but the fire marshal is willing to allow these hollow, tubular-core doors, which are dangerous and don't afford the 20-minute fire protection that's in the code. Why are you allowing the fire marshal to put lives at risk?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'll take the question as notice and get back to the member as quickly as I can.

Mr Ramsay: This is another example of this minister not doing his job, because I know that representation has been made to your office and members of your personal staff have met with representatives about this issue and you should be briefed on it.

As you know, Minister, it's a serious issue because on January 6, 1995, fire broke out in a high-rise building at 2 Forest Laneway in North York and six people died in that fire. At that time, the coroner's jury recommended increased penalties for non-compliance with the Ontario fire code and to require high-rise apartment building owners to complete the retrofit requirements for doors.

Historically, Ontario fire chiefs have relied on the Ontario fire marshal's office for advice on how to enforce the code. Understandably, the chief of North York will not accept hollow core doors any longer. Minister, when are you going to start protecting the lives of tenants instead of the bank accounts of landlords?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General and it again concerns the comments that the Attorney General has made. I want to ask you directly. Hansard shows that on November 7, 1996, you came into this Legislature, you referred to two members of the third party, and then you made this remark: "I said there was a break-in." "...there was a break-in." Do you deny making those comments in this Legislature on November 7?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I've explained the comments that I've made and my explanation stands.

Mr Hampton: We've been asking lawyers around the province to review the Attorney General's comments -- they are, after all, in Hansard; they're part of the public record -- and this is the comment we received:

"The Attorney General is the chief administrator of the laws of the province. As such, the office of the Attorney General must remain free of the partisan considerations that may dominate the Legislature. An Attorney General, for instance, must be scrupulous in avoiding any comments that might jeopardize the prospects of a fair hearing for any future criminal proceeding."

This lawyer then goes on to say: "Harnick's reference in the Legislature crossed this line. It was wrong to disclose the identity of two members of the Legislature. It was wrong for him subsequently to say, `break into an office,' and it was wrong for him to further add, `Ask Kormos what he did with the security guard.'"

You have clearly crossed the line in terms of behaviour and conduct that is appropriate for an Attorney General. Minister, will you resign?

Hon Mr Harnick: As I've said, I've explained my remarks and my explanation stands.

PAEDIATRIC CARE

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In response to a question raised by the member for Downsview, I hope she will inform the family that Dr Goldbloom at Sick Children's Hospital would be happy to see the child at their convenience, or immediately.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, at a recent speech --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Kenora, come to order. The Minister of Health rose on a point of privilege because the member for Downsview had risen on a previous point of privilege. That wasn't a question; that wasn't rotation. He was not standing on his answer. If the member for Downsview had not risen on a point of privilege, I wouldn't have recognized the member then, I would have waited till after question period, but she did.

New question, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I welcome the answer from the Minister of Health. The parents of the child are watching the proceedings --

The Speaker: That's great, but what's your point of order?

Mr Sergio: It's coming, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I need it now. Stop the clock, please.

Mr Sergio: My point of order is that it is fine to get some assistance from the health minister, but it's terrible that we have to come to this House to seek some assistance --

The Speaker: Member for Yorkview, come to order. That's not a point of order. A point of privilege, the member for Downsview.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): So you stop the clock for the government, eh, Speaker?

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why is the clock stopped?

The Speaker: The clock's stopped because there is now a point of privilege, a point of order. I'd recognized the member for Hamilton West to allow her to put her question. The member for Downsview.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, come to order. The member for Cochrane North. The member for Sault Ste Marie. I'm going to name the member for Sault Ste Marie. On a number of occasions when they've stood in this place, the government members, I've stopped the clock as well.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You show me in Hansard where you've done that. This is entirely unfair.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order. If you'd like me to, I will.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Mr Speaker, pursuant to your instructions earlier, I was going to wait until the end of question period to fully raise my point of privilege and have you rule on it. I'm grateful for the minister's attention to this matter, but that wasn't the point of privilege I raised. The point of privilege I raised was that we received a call in my office from the minister's office indicating that we couldn't raise an issue without giving forewarning to the minister. The reality is that the family did try and got nowhere with the minister's office and they turned to us.

I don't believe we should be giving warning to the government of the things we want to raise in this House --

The Speaker: I'm not denying that you raised that point of privilege. I just gave the Minister of Health the same opportunity to raise a point of privilege on the same issue. It's only fair. I'm going to finish question period. Can I take your privilege up after question period?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'd like to take this up now, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Okay. The member for Scarborough.

Mr Curling: When the member rose on a point of privilege, you ruled it was not a point of privilege, and then you accept a response on a point of privilege. You said it wasn't a point of privilege. I'm confused.

The Speaker: I'll be happy to explain the situation, if you'd like, after question period. The point was that it wasn't a point of privilege. The Minister of Health rose on a point of privilege. I am obligated to hear a point of privilege, and I offered at the time to defer it till after question period. I offered the member for Downsview to hear it after question period. The member said no, so I heard on the same point of privilege or a similar point of privilege.

Now, the member for Hamilton East.

WORKFARE

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, at a recent speech you gave to the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association you suggested that the mandatory component of the Ontario Works program was no longer a requirement. Has there been any change in the mandatory aspects of Ontario Works and can you please tell me, if in fact there is no change, does the mandatory nature of the program affect welfare recipients specifically? How does it affect them?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I can understand the member's confusion, having read some of the media reports, but there has been no change in the policy of Ontario Works. Social assistance is a mandatory program for municipalities to offer in partnership with the province. Workfare or, as it is otherwise called, Ontario Works, is the new social assistance system in Ontario, so therefore each municipality must provide a program of employment supports, community participation and employment placement as part of their partnership with us.

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it was gathered by two Sudbury firefighters, Marc Leduc and Mike O'Reilly:

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition, as I agree with it.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas child care is an essential service and children should not be used to make money; and

"Whereas reducing current standards to minimal building codes compromises the safety of children; and

"Whereas providing funding to the private sector will lead to reduced accountability for tax dollars; and

"Whereas children's growth and development could be in serious jeopardy without trained professionals caring for them; and

"Whereas reducing monitoring inspections and increasing staff-child ratios will result in poor-quality child care programs; and

"Whereas staff wages are a major indicator of quality, and proposed reductions and wage subsidies will have a negative impact on child care; and

"Whereas the need for parental choice in child care is recognized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reconsider the directions proposed in Improving Ontario's Child Care System, the report released by Janet Ecker, as we feel it will have a negative impact on the families of Ontario."

I attach my signature.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I have a petition which is signed by a number of parents from Niagara-on-the-Lake, part of my riding, who are concerned about education in our community.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government is planning to make significant changes to the delivery and governance of education in this province; and

"Whereas we as parents believe that school councils should play an important role in education, with clearly defined responsibilities limited to their particular school communities; and

"Whereas we as ratepayers are extremely disturbed that consideration is being given to abolish school boards and eliminate decision-making by locally elected representatives;

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly that the present structure of school boards within the province of Ontario continue to have a major role in the governance of schools to deal with broad policies as advocates for the students in their community, to provide cost-efficient educational services and to be directly accountable to the parents and local ratepayers."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is bringing down one of the most devastating pieces of legislation. I have a petition to Premier Michael Harris, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the Ontario provincial Legislature which reads:

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below.

"The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and other communities open to eviction, personal distress, and contribute directly to social instability. We want this government to stop any actions that would allow uncontrolled rents.

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario tenants and damaging to Ontario's communities.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing and has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to obtain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce the affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

"This government has eliminated funding for United Tenants of Ontario, five municipal tenant federations and other important tenant services at a time when they're attacking all tenants' rights. Funding for those groups must be reinstated so that Ontario's tenants' rights are protected. A consultation process with tenants' organizations should be initiated immediately to develop a plan for suitable funding for services to tenants."

I affix my signature to this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have in my hands 251 petitions signed by over 3,300 members of CEP, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. These petitions were forwarded to me on behalf of those members by Joel Carr, the national representative, and Ed Nelson, the Ontario regional vice-president. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I add my name in support with theirs.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and I'm signing it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the proposed changes to secondary schools as outlined in Ontario Secondary Schools 1998, the detailed discussion document, makes it easier for students to drop out; and

"Whereas the types of courses offered, as outlined in the discussion document, will not meet the needs of minority students; and

"Whereas there is too much emphasis placed on workplace education, as outlined in the discussion document; and

"Whereas, as outlined in the discussion document, students who are at risk of dropping out will continue to be at risk; and

"Whereas there is a lack of minority teachers to act as teacher advisers, as outlined in the discussion document; and

"Whereas the proposed anti-discrimination education, as outlined in the discussion document, is virtually meaningless;

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our great dismay and opposition to these proposed changes and urge the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training to reconsider these ill-advised changes."

This petition is signed by 20 residents, mostly of Toronto but from a number of areas in the province, and I affix my signature to it.

SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I wish to present a petition on behalf of Charles Harper and Larry Davidson of the Port Perry Snowmobile Club.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs contributes in a significant way to the tourism economy of Ontario;

"Whereas the snowmobile clubs are very conscious of safe operation and compliance of all regulations with their machines;

"Whereas the snowmobile operators spend thousands of dollars on their machines;

"Whereas the expensive modern machines usually have decals with names and other lettering;

"Whereas the current MTO issues registration numbers that are not complementary to the other lettering on the machines;

"We, therefore, petition the Legislature of Ontario to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, Revised Statutes of 1990,

chapter M.44, regulation 804,

section 23, subsections (3), (4) and (5), and allow the operators to affix their own registration numbers at their own expense."

I am proud to affix my name along with other members from the Port Perry area.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I've got a petition signed by over 50 concerned parents of Orléans.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the most efficient family support payment system, for all the families in Ontario, is one that provides timely and adequate service; and

"Whereas recent delays in support payments are unacceptable to residents of Ontario;

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

"That the government of Ontario promptly implement a level of service that will ensure timely distribution of family support payments, including arrears, to recipients in order that they may provide quality care for their children."

I also affix my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from the Ontario Federation of Labour, United Steelworkers of America, Canadian Auto Workers and Canadian Union of Public Employees.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Board has about $7.6 billion in assets and the WCB's unfunded liability has been decreasing for the past two years; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is using scare tactics about WCB finances to justify attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers; and

"Whereas the Tories are planning to take $15 billion from injured workers and give $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas the government has developed its plans in secret, meeting with insurance company executives and big business lobbyists without holding a single public hearing; and

"Whereas the government needs to listen to people saying that taking money from injured workers and their families, lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer and rolling back the clock on justice for workers is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on any WCB reform; to encourage participation in communities all across Ontario; and to tell the Tory government to stop attacking the standard of living of working families."

I add my name in support with theirs.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas convicted first-degree murderers are allowed to apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

"Whereas victims' families must relive the horrors of the original crime through a jury hearing for this early parole and relive this every time the killer is given rehearings for early parole; and

"Whereas the provincial government must bear a large degree of the costs involved with a jury hearing;

"We, the undersigned, ask the Attorney General of Ontario to request the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to reconsider his decision under Bill C-45 and to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I affix my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 25th report.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Does the Chair wish to make a statement?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): No, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOXING DAY SHOPPING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE LENDEMAIN DE NOËL

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to permit shopping on Boxing Day by amending the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act / Projet de loi 95, Loi visant à permettre l'ouverture des magasins le lendemain de Noël en modifiant la

Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The Boxing Day Shopping Act removes December 26 from the list of holiday closing dates. This will allow businesses the choice of whether to be open or closed, will allow their employees the choice of whether or not to work and will give consumers the choice of whether or not to shop on Boxing Day. This bill includes amendments to the Employment Standards Act in order to maintain the right of employees of retail businesses to refuse to work on December 26. Through this legislation the government will demonstrate that Ontario is open for business.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Harnick moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent from each of the parties to divide the opening debate time allotment as many ways as we wish. Is that --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's not quite said correctly. Each party's leadoff could be split among multiple critics.

Hon Mr Harnick: Each party's leadoff can be split among multiple speakers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I want to be very clear on what we're moving here. You're asking that each party's leadoff be split in whatever way each party wants to split that leadoff time?

Hon Mr Harnick: Exactly.

The Acting Speaker: This is for all three parties. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm pleased to present for second reading the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996. This act replaces the Family Support Plan Act, 1992.

As I have said in earlier statements to this House, Ontario's family support plan is broken. As Attorney General, I am committed to fixing it. I'm committed to ensuring that the children and women of this province get the support payments that they are legally entitled to receive.

Every member of this Legislature knows that there are problems with the current family support plan, and every member knows that the roots of those problems go back a long way, all the way back to 1987. That's when the former Liberal government set up SCOE, the support and custody orders enforcement program. This was followed in 1992 by the former NDP government's Family Support Plan Act. Both these efforts, while well intentioned, were flawed. Neither one was successful in achieving what our government considers to be the bottom line for these programs: getting support payments to children and women as quickly as possible.

What we have today is an inadequate family support plan. It is a plan that is broken. It is simply not working in a way that properly meets the needs of children and women.

Just how broken is the family support plan? There are cracks, I believe, in the very foundations of the old plan. Its service to clients and its enforcement of support orders in many cases is non-existent.

Access to the family support plan has always been difficult. As I've said before, the plan gets 50,000 calls a day, with only about 6% of callers getting through at any one time. Some 8,000 pieces of mail arrive every day. Many are complaints from clients about their inability to get through on the phone lines and the fact that recipients are not receiving their payments.

Three years ago the family support plan caseload was 97,000 cases. There are currently more than 150,000 cases, an increase of approximately 40% over the past three years, and the caseload is growing at an average rate of about 1,400 cases per month. The way the plan is currently structured, it is not able to keep up with the needs of the children and women who depend on it.

This poor access to the old plan by its clients was bad enough, but the old plan was also ineffective in enforcing support orders. Today defaulting payors owe children and women nearly $1 billion in support payments. More than three quarters of the plan's cases, 77%, are not in full compliance. Prompt, regular payment of support obligations happens in only approximately 23% of cases. This is totally unacceptable, and our government has refused to accept it.

Let me be clear. The problems of poor client access to the old family support plan and skyrocketing support arrears are not problems that began in June 1995. They are problems our government inherited in June 1995. They are problems we made a commitment to fixing in the Common Sense Revolution. They are problems we are fixing in the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

Patching up the old plan won't work. Ontario needs, and we are providing, a new support payment program. On August 15, 1996, I announced the restructuring of the family support plan. The problems we inherited from the previous government are making the transition from the old plan to a new plan very difficult, but we are committed to moving ahead and putting a plan in place that really meets the needs of Ontario's children and women.

Throughout the transition we have made, and are continuing to make, processing payments our number one priority. In September a computer problem caused a delay in processing about 5% of family support payments, affecting 7,000 of the plan's 150,000 recipients. I publicly apologized to those recipients and immediately took corrective action. We fixed the computer problem, we increased telephone access, we brought in extra staff, and with our partner, the Royal Bank, we worked overtime to break the backlog that the computer problem created. We promptly got money flowing again to those 7,000 families.

We have also set up a dedicated team of experienced enforcement staff to respond to cases that members of this Legislature bring to our attention. As of November 13 the team has dealt with nearly 1,700 cases. Updates of that number indicate that we have dealt with, I believe, over 2,000 of those cases to date. Whatever the nature of a complaint or whoever makes it, we are acting swiftly and promptly to deal with it.

There is a common misperception about the old family support plan's operation that I would like to dispel. The misperception is that the regional office structure provided clients with easy access to the family support plan. This was not the case.

A key component of the new program that our government is putting in place is moving the regional office operations to a consolidated location in Downsview. The reason for this consolidation is that the regional office structure that previous governments operated made no sense. Only clients living in the eight cities where the regional offices were located had counter access to the program. Fewer than 60 people visited each regional office on any given day. Many clients said they preferred to contact the program by phone and indicated that they went to the regional offices because of their difficulty in getting through on the program's telephone lines.

In spite of clients' preference for telephone access to the plan, previous governments did not make the necessary investment in a telecommunications infrastructure that would meet clients' needs. Under the new program that we are putting in place, our government is making that investment in telecommunications. We have almost doubled the number of telephone lines, from 15 to 27. The number of staff now responding to telephone inquiries is over 40, compared to 18 in August, when we began the transition. We are installing a state-of-the-art call centre capability that will give clients direct access to the plan and to a client service associate who can help them.

Under the old regional office structure that was previously created, the majority of client calls to the program was not received at the regional level. At central inquiry, agents received the calls but they did not have the capability to resolve the cases and the issues. These central inquiry agents then referred issues back to the regional offices. Under this unwieldy assembly-line system, at least three people -- the central inquiry agent, the regional manager and a regional staff member -- got involved before a client got any action on her or his case. It should be no surprise that we inherited a system where delays in responding to client calls were a routine occurrence.

I might also tell you that what was supposed to be happening at the regional offices pertained to issues of enforcement, but because of the antiquated way that people decided to deal with cheque processing, most of the people at regional offices spent all of their time sorting cheques by hand. That, in a modern-day world where we do electronic banking, where we have immediate access and transactions could be processed almost instantaneously and certainly within 24 to 36 hours, was not what was happening at the family support plan regional offices.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): So what's happening now? What's happening to the cheques now, Charles?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, please come to order.

Ms Martel: I can't take this. You should talk to some of these children.

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you that the regional offices were not doing the job that they were set out and constructed to do.

Ms Martel: So you laid them all off.

Hon Mr Harnick: We have eliminated this assembly-line approach to handling client calls and are replacing it with one in which highly skilled client service associates will provide one-stop shopping for clients. We are nearly doubling the number of front-line staff, 97 client service associates compared to 40 --

Ms Martel: You cut them down by 40%, Charles. Why don't you tell the public that?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East, order.

Hon Mr Harnick: -- under the old family support plan operation. Most of the new staff have been hired and are currently training for their new role. Their training will give them the skills to handle a variety of tasks that, under the old plan, several people had to carry out. And most important, they will have the knowledge, the tools, the technology and the authority to resolve client problems directly. These reforms and this change to better serve clients of the plan are long overdue.

We are also moving to reduce the systemic delays that we inherited in the receipt and disbursement of support payments. For example, the old program relied too much on the postal system to receive and distribute payments, with the government in the middle, transferring funds from payors to recipients. This further delayed payment processing.

Ms Martel: Who's going to pay all the bills brought in today, Charles? Are you going to pay them?

Hon Mr Harnick: Requiring payors where possible to use electronic banking will eliminate delays caused by cheque handling and mail service.

To this government, providing one-stop shopping, making maximum use of technology and giving our staff the skills and tools they need to serve clients properly and effectively is just common sense. As we move forward in establishing a new and truly effective support enforcement program in Ontario, problems are surfacing that were hidden in the old regional office structure. For example, we found there were delays in registering court orders and in processing mail received from clients. We are acting promptly and decisively to correct each and every one.

Ms Martel: They're not being registered at all. You don't even have the staff to do that. Who are you trying to kid?

Hon Mr Harnick: The operational changes will improve service to clients, but the foundation --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: As you know, interjections are out of order. The member for Sudbury East has been in this House three minutes and she's made eight interjections. We are on rotation. She will have an opportunity to speak to this bill.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last interjections. I have asked the --

Mrs Marland: I would ask her to do so.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga, now you're interjecting. I've asked the member for Sudbury East to come to order. I'd ask her to do so again. The member for London Centre.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: There is no quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum, Clerk?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Attorney General, please proceed.

Hon Mr Harnick: The operational changes will improve service to clients, but the foundation for the kind of truly effective support enforcement program that our government is committed to creating is tougher enforcement measures. The Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act provides this foundation.

The Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act creates a new Family Responsibility Office. This new office will oversee the establishment of the new family responsibility and support arrears enforcement program, a program that will really meet the needs of children and women in Ontario. It will ensure that children and women in this province get the justice they deserve.

The new act contains three critical building blocks. These three building blocks are tougher enforcement measures; automatic filing with opting out; and mechanisms to enable participation by the private sector. The first building block in the new program's foundation is a series of new "get tough" enforcement measures. They will be among the most stringent you will find in any North American jurisdiction.

The fact that there is a large number of support orders in arrears is a clear indicator that far too many payors are not taking their support orders seriously or are actively avoiding paying.

I would like to highlight for the members some of the key enforcement measures that will be available through the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

It's interesting to know that over the last six years we have accumulated, on top of the $300-million debt that existed in 1992, an additional almost $600 million more; we're at $960 million. If one takes a look at the existing family support act, you cannot find in that act enforcement measures that could possibly make that act succeed. That's why there is almost $1 billion owing to women and children.

The first enforcement measure I want to talk about is the suspension of drivers' licences, which is dealt with in

part V of the bill. The new Family Responsibility Office will have the authority to suspend the driver's licence of people who refuse to meet their family support responsibilities.

Payors in default will receive a notice that they have 30 days to contact the Family Responsibility Office to make payments or to arrange a payment plan to avoid licence suspension. If the payor who is in default does not make a satisfactory payment arrangement, or pay outstanding arrears, the Family Responsibility Office will advise the Ministry of Transportation to proceed immediately with the suspension of the payor's current licence, unless the payor receives an order from the court requiring the director to refrain from suspending the licence.

I would like to make it clear that licence suspension will not depend on the defaulter renewing his licence. Steps will be taken to suspend it immediately. Once a licence is suspended, it will not be reissued until all arrears are paid or there is a satisfactory repayment plan in place.

Suspending the licences of defaulting payors is consistent with trends in other jurisdictions. Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and more than 20 American states all have some form of licence suspension or licence withholding to collect support arrears. Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan have also introduced legislation to suspend drivers' licences to collect support arrears. In March 1996 the federal government announced that it is proceeding with a new federal licence suspension initiative with respect to federal licences and passports to collect support arrears.

Alberta's early experience indicates that licence suspension is a highly effective enforcement measure. After being in place for only one year, licence suspension in Alberta resulted in the collection of $1.4 million in support payments that otherwise might not have been collected.

In Manitoba, when the first approximately 100 notices went out to people, 93% came forward and entered into plans to begin money flowing where no money had been flowing before.

I can assure this House as well that no driver will suddenly find their licence revoked without any warning. A payor who is in default will receive 30 days' notice and will have an opportunity to establish a repayment plan before a licence suspension takes place. A support payor who is in arrears will not necessarily have to make an immediate payment of all the arrears to keep a licence. However, a support payor who is in arrears will have to negotiate an acceptable repayment plan within a specified time period of the arrears, maintain payment of ongoing support and take responsibility for his default.

People who have child support obligations often continue to build up credit card debts while neglecting their support payments. Pursuant to

section 47 of the bill, the Family Responsibility Office will have the right to report to credit bureaus the names of people who are not making their support payments. This will make it harder for them to add to their debt and will reflect negatively on their credit rating. This will be very useful in enforcing payments by people who are self-employed. It will also help prevent them from purchasing luxury items on credit before they have paid their child support obligations.

Pursuant to

section 43 of the bill, the new Family Responsibility Office will have the power to register support orders as security interests under the Personal Property Security Act. This will provide notice to commercial lenders that an individual has a support debt. When an asset is sold, child support will be given priority over subsequent registered and unregistered interests.

Amendments to the Creditors' Relief Act which are found in

section 66 of the bill will give priority to all support arrears over other judgement creditors.

Defaulting payors are often helped in avoiding their obligations by third parties who shelter their assets for them. Through third-party enforcement provided in

section 41 of this bill, the Family Responsibility Office will be in a position to ask the court to order production of financial statements and make orders against those who shelter the assets and income of defaulting payors for the purpose of avoiding support orders.

In implementing this important new enforcement tool, we are aware of the need to protect innocent third parties. Third parties will be added to a default hearing or will be required to file a financial statement only if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so; that is, where there is some evidence of the sheltering of assets or income. Any order for payment that is made against a third party will be limited to the actual amount of the sheltering of income or assets and only when there is a finding by the court that the assets were sheltered.

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

A loophole that has existed until now has allowed support payors to shelter funds in joint bank accounts with other parties. The old family support plan was not able to garnish these accounts. Under

section 45 of the new legislation, the Family Responsibility Office will have the authority to garnish 50% of the money in a joint bank account.

Again, we have built in protections for innocent third parties. When a payor is in arrears, the Family Responsibility Office will send a garnishment to the payor and to the payor's bank. When there is a joint bank account, the bank will notify the Family Responsibility Office that the money is in a joint account and also notify the third party. Third parties will then be able to file a dispute if they are claiming ownership of the funds that the Family Responsibility Office has seized.

After receiving the money from the bank, the Family Responsibility Office will hold it for 30 days. If a third party does not file a dispute, the Family Responsibility Office will then pay the recipient the moneys that are owed. Where a dispute is filed, the court will hold the hearing and decide who owns the money. The onus will be on the third party to prove ownership. If the court finds in the third party's favour, the money will be returned to the third party. In addition, the other account holder can bring court action seeking repayment of seized funds from the support payor.

Another tough new enforcement measure covered in

section 46 of the bill will involve the seizure of lottery winnings of $1,000 or more. The Ontario Lottery Corp will deduct the arrears owed under a support order from the lottery winnings and pay the deducted amount to the director of the Family Responsibility Office if the payor wins a prize of $1,000 or more.

We've also found that the definition of "income source" under the old family support plan was much too narrow. It meant that the plan could not get access to other sources of a payor's income through automatic deduction. Under

section 1 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, we are expanding the definition of "income" to include other moneys which are in the nature of employment income. Income will now include all commissions, advances, severances and lump sum payments. This will enable the Family Responsibility Office to be much more effective in obtaining the money that is owed to children and to women by those who are intermittently employed or have non-standard employment arrangements.

Pursuant to

section 54 of the bill, the Family Responsibility Office will have much better methods to trace and locate defaulting parents. It will also have greater powers to obtain information about their assets and income. This will mean that if a payor cannot be found, the Family Responsibility Office will have the authority to gain access to information in order to take effective enforcement action on behalf of children and women in Ontario.

Finally, people who do not pay their child support will be ineligible for Ontario government judicial appointments and appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. We will screen all provincial government appointments to make sure that they do not appoint people who do not pay their child support. This does not require a legislative amendment; however, I am highlighting this initiative to further illustrate that the government is taking the issue of non-payment of support very seriously.

The second building block, automatic filing with opting out, gives responsible people the choice of making their own private arrangements to provide support for women and children without the necessity of government intervention. By doing this we are honouring the following commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution: Parents who have reached amicable separation settlements and who have no dispute over support payments should be able to opt out of the government-mandated program. As a result, the Family Responsibility Office will be able to focus its resources and expertise on problem cases.

When children and women do not receive the money that is legally and rightfully theirs, they suffer. They experience hardship. Often they are forced into poverty and on to social assistance. Make no mistake: Our government believes that people who do not meet their family support payment responsibilities deserve the full condemnation of society.

At the same time, we know there are many responsible people in Ontario who abide by the law. They fulfil their support obligations. Their payments are never in arrears. They do not need to have government officials peering over their shoulders when they make their payments.

Section 16 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act makes it possible for these responsible people to opt out of the program. This opting-out provision means that the expertise and resources of the Family Responsibility Office can be focused entirely on the problem cases: those where children and women are not receiving their support payments because deadbeat parents are not acting responsibly.

I know that some members of the Legislature and some advocacy groups have expressed concerns that this opting-out provision may put women at risk. I want to assure the members and the people of Ontario that we have put safeguards in place to protect vulnerable spouses. I am very aware that there are situations where a vulnerable spouse could be subjected to coercion or abuse or who, for a variety of reasons, may be in an unequal bargaining relationship. These spouses may want to remain in the program for a number of reasons, including their desire not to have contact with the payor or because they fear they will not otherwise receive payments from the payor.

To protect women in those situations, subsection 9(2) of the bill will give judges the authority t