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

November 24, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

CAVE SPRINGS DOCUMENTARY

CHRISTMAS SEASON

CHILD POVERTY

WASTE REDUCTION

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

CINDY CONDER

DRIVERS' LICENCES / PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

GOVERNMENT HOTEL EXPENDITURES

PHOTO-RADAR

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

ONTARIO HYDRO

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGH-ALCOHOL BEER

COURT SYSTEM

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

LANDSLIDE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

JUDICIAL INQUIRY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)

TIME ALLOCATION / ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services why he continues to drag his feet on social assistance reform. We were all rushed off in early July to a training centre for the introduction of the document Turning Point, but since then little has happened.

The tragedy is that social assistance spending in this province now exceeds spending on education. To add to that tragedy, the level of education of applicants for social assistance is quickly rising; we now have university graduates and we now have vice-presidents of companies standing shoulder to shoulder with the most vulnerable in our communities.

Questions and concerns continue to mount both in the minds of the recipients and the providers about Turning Point, the government blueprint on social assistance reform.

Staff wonder if and when they will be retrained. Recipients fear new eligibility criteria and wait patiently for counselling and personalized planning. Municipal partners want to know what role they will play.

The end of this government's mandate is fast approaching. I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to stop stalling on this issue. Social assistance reform must be a front-burner government priority.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I have yet another example of how government has failed to live up to its commitment to consult the people. A prominent member of the Madawaska highlands advisory committee has resigned from that committee. He has done so because this government's approach is unaccountable and fundamentally flawed.

Renfrew county warden Dermott Calver resigned from the committee yesterday for some of the following reasons: He has no faith in the Ontario government's stewardship of our natural resources; as a member of the committee, he was given no power to make decisions about the future use of the highlands region; and, finally, Mr Calver believes that the agenda is driven by either outside special interest groups or the government itself.

This government has made a farce of the democratic process. The Minister of Natural Resources must stop paying lipservice to public committees and engage in genuine consultations. With true consultation, the minister will find that the people want to maintain traditional uses of land in the Madawaska region. They want to continue forestry, tourism, hunting, angling and conservation.

CAVE SPRINGS DOCUMENTARY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to inform the House that Cave Springs, a most unique conservation park in my riding, will be the subject of an upcoming documentary on Maclean-Hunter cable TV. The half-hour show, produced by Patti Crossley of Port Dalhousie, will be shown throughout Niagara on community cable 10 at 8 pm Saturday, December 4.

Cave Springs, located in the town of Lincoln, has been a focal point of interest for many years because of the ice cave and magnesium spring. Its historical significance runs the gamut from lost treasure caves to early Loyalist settlement. The most interesting place to visit in the park is the ice cave. In winter, there is no ice or snow inside the cave. It stops at the entrance. But as the warm days of spring turn into the blazing days of summer, ice forms and thickens in the cave. You figure it out, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Margaret Reed, fondly known as the Witch of Cave Springs, has been giving tours of the site for years. She especially enjoys casting the magical spell of Cave Springs on school children. The documentary has captured the essence of Cave Springs and the spirit of its keeper, Mrs Margaret Reed, a wonderful senior who says she'll live for ever because she drinks the magic water of Cave Springs.

The show will be distributed to other interested cable stations throughout Ontario and Canada. I urge this House to keep an eye out for this documentary and to pay a visit to Cave Springs.

CHRISTMAS SEASON

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): The Christmas season is fast approaching and it is a season that I, for one, am glad to celebrate. While many of us think of Santa Claus, holly and Christmas trees, except perhaps the grinches in Management Board, we must give some serious consideration to those less fortunate than ourselves. For many of the homeless in Ontario, Christmas is just another cold day in a doorway. In this province, we have record high levels of unemployment and an ever-increasing lineup at the welfare offices.

The 119,000 welfare cases handled last month in Metro represent support for 210,000 individuals, with a 400% increase in the number of children who are dependent on welfare compared to October 1989.

Let us give consideration to how these citizens of our province are going to deal with this upcoming Christmas. Let each of us think seriously about making donations to the Santa Claus funds around the province, the charities that do so much valuable work in our communities and, unfortunately though they exist, the food banks, which are so important in ensuring people have enough to eat.

I would also like to pass on a message from a constituent of mine to the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Premier. This is what a constituent of mine, Hamish Broadwater, told me to ask on his behalf of the Premier and minister. He said, and I quote: "Tim, please remind them that real people cash welfare cheques. Will you please ask the Premier and minister to make sure that the cheques arrive early enough so people have them to celebrate Christmas, not like last year."

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Tricia Devlin and Diane Smith of the Body Shop in Owen Sound have presented me with hundreds of cards signed by constituents who are calling for elimination of child poverty.

One measure to ensure that children are not hungry is the breakfast program which my leader and my caucus have long pressed this government to establish in Ontario. As I have told the House previously, if the Minister of Education and Training wants a successful example, he need look no further than Owen Sound, where the local Red Cross and other community agencies have designed a pilot project for the students in kindergarten to grade 6.

This sort of program where government acts as a facilitator between private industry, community groups and boards of education guarantees that our school children start each day with a nutritious meal. Because it is done in partnership with the private sector, there is little or no cost to the already overburdened taxpayer. As well, it will go a long way to helping children from homes where there is not always enough food to keep them healthy, alert and keen to stay in school.

We can do much to help eliminate child poverty, not only with the breakfast program but with less intrusive government policies and a much fairer and more responsible approach to taxation. We cannot ask the people to keep paying and paying and paying, and we must welcome the private sector and encourage it to create jobs so we can have the sort of healthy economic climate where parents work, where children are fed well and where no one lives in poverty.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I am pleased today to inform the House that Lambton county continues to support and participate in Ontario's waste reduction action plan. The townships of Moore and Sombra recently received grants totalling $100,000 under the municipal recycling support program. The townships of Moore and Sombra are two of over 520 municipalities actively working to divert waste through recycling.

Presently, municipal recycling programs service over 3.1 million households across the province and together produce 444,000 tonnes of market-ready materials annually. This program, when combined with others under the waste management reduction plan, has enabled Ontario to meet the 25% diversion target and will make a significant contribution to our next goal of at least 50% waste reduction and diversion by the year 2000.

This government is committed to a safe and clean environment, and through commitments such as the municipal recycling support program, I am pleased that my riding of Lambton is participating to meet the goals of Ontario's waste reduction action plan.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On Monday of this week, I had the privilege of asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he would introduce Bill 77, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Statute Law Amendment Act, for second reading before the end of this session. His answer was vague and also unrelated. Mr Minister, on behalf of every citizen in Ottawa-Carleton, I once again invite you to introduce this very important bill, and let's have an open, democratic debate.

I find it very unfair that you or the member for Ottawa Centre would ask the opposition to guarantee a quick passage of this bill. We need an opportunity to debate so we could introduce five amendments, and let you, the majority government, decide if these amendments could be incorporated.

You have an open invitation to serve the public of Ottawa-Carleton with the same dignity and treatment as other municipalities in the province of Ontario. Our request is a fair one, Mr Minister. Will you do it?

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Tomorrow, Sunoco and UCO Petroleum will introduce ethanol-blended gasoline to Metropolitan Toronto. As someone who has supported fuel ethanol for many years in this House, I believe that tomorrow marks an important step for ethanol-enhanced gasoline.

Ethanol, as an octane enhancer, is both an economic and environmental plus for the province of Ontario. On the economic side, Ontario corn growers achieve a new market for their product and our economy reduces its dependence on imported fossil fuels and additives. On the environmental side, ethanol reduces pollution. Growing crops remove carbon dioxide from the air. Ethanol-blended gasoline burns more completely, ensuring lower emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons during winter months.

It's ironic that just a few years ago the Peterson Liberals rewrote fuel regulations to prevent the use of greener fuel. We have made very significant progress since that time. Ethanol-blended gas is the greenest fuel any car can utilize without undergoing any modifications.

I encourage the motoring public in the Toronto area to support ethanol-blended gasoline to benefit the environment and reduce pollution. I hope that in the future we will see more locations in addition to the one opening tomorrow at the Sunoco station at 640 The Queensway in Etobicoke at East Mall.

CINDY CONDER

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I'd like to take a few minutes, less than 90 seconds, actually, to talk about Cindy Conder. Cindy Conder is presently the warden of Prince Edward county, but she's retiring after only seven years of being a municipal politician.

The reason she's doing this is because she has a young family. When she first started into politics, she had no children. She now has two and I think she finds that the workload is a little too much, considering that she is a young mother.

I just want to say that in her short time Cindy Conder has made some great contributions to the community. She was first elected as a councillor in Athol township, the township where I live. She then became the deputy reeve and eventually the reeve, and this past year she has spent her term in office as the warden of Prince Edward county.

She's done a great job. Her family, especially her husband, Curt, need to be commended for sticking by her through these difficult times.

I want to congratulate her on a difficult year as warden where she's had to deal with things like planning, deer and ferries. I just want to say that she has done a great job. She's contributed to the community and I wish her the best of luck in the future. Maybe in the future she'll get back into politics, at a later time.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DRIVERS' LICENCES / PERMIS DE CONDUIRE

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): During the past year, this government has introduced a series of measures designed to make Ontario's roads safer. Each of these initiatives brings us a step closer to our goal, simply of making Ontario's roads the safest in all of North America.

Our plan for improving road safety has many facets. There are many causes of collisions. There are, of course, many diverse responses that will indeed save lives.

Today, we'll move first reading of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1993, the legislation to allow graduated licensing of new drivers to begin in the spring of 1994, next spring.

In the government's coordinated plan to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America, graduated licensing is indeed an important component, but by no means the only component.

Nous estimons que la délivrance graduelle remportera un succès en Ontario, comme cela est évident et comme cela a été le cas dans d'autres pays à travers le monde, dans le cadre d'un train de mesures qui visent à améliorer le comportement des conducteurs, la cause de 85 % des collisions ici en Ontario.

Nous préparons donc, en réponse, un vaste programme. Ce programme vise à améliorer la sécurité routière qui met l'accent sur le comportement des conducteurs et particulièrement sur le comportement des conducteurs agressifs, des conducteurs inexpérimentés et de ceux qui conduisent en état d'ébriété.

For evidence that these measures will work, we have only to look at the state of Victoria in Australia, where a package of road safety measures fully reduced traffic fatalities by 47% during a short period of three years.

We can change the statistics here as well. We can save lives, reduce injuries and cut the $9-billion cost of collisions each year.

By introducing measures such as these amendments and Bill 47, our government serves notice that it will not accept the annual price of deaths and injuries caused by collisions.

The legislation I will introduce responds to committee recommendations. We have made two changes to the requirements for new drivers under level 1 of the system.

First, in the revised legislation only one passenger is allowed to ride in the front seat with a level 1 driver. That passenger must be the experienced driver accompanying the new driver.

The second change makes the new driver vehicle sign voluntary for level 1 drivers. We will, however, provide all level 1 drivers with signs they may choose to display.

Graduated licensing has received very broad support from the people of Ontario. I'm happy today to acknowledge the Transportation critics who have shown their concern for safety with strong and non-partisan support for graduated licensing.

I would particularly like to recognize the support of the members for York Mills and Nepean, Mr Turnbull and Mr Daigeler. They have championed graduated licensing. They anxiously awaited its introduction. They contributed to the committee's review of the draft legislation.

Now it is my sincere hope that they shall continue, in the collective, to demonstrate their support as it moves towards the system. Members of the House can be proud of their role in bringing this measure forward.

We are indebted to the all-party committee chaired by the member for Sarnia, Mr Huget, and to the work of my parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Mr Dadamo.

By introducing draft legislation today and by holding an all-party committee review, we have accelerated this legislation. Working together in the same way in the future can only ensure that important measures for the public good come forward as quickly as possible.

I thank the members opposite once again and look forward to their continuing support vis-à-vis our goal of making our roads the safest in North America.

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Ontario's universities play an important role in the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the province. Over the years our universities have adapted to the changing economic and social conditions and have provided Ontarians with exceptional educational opportunities built on a tradition of quality and excellence.

Once again conditions are changing. It is expected that Ontario's future economic growth and prosperity will be based on industries that are knowledge-intensive. By the year 2000 at least half of all new jobs will require post-secondary education. Studies suggest that employees will have to upgrade their skills every four years simply because the pace of technology and the growth of information are evolving at tremendous rates.

Based on these and other trends we can expect demand of university services to grow. Because of this, our universities need to increase enrolments beyond the high levels they are already accommodating today.

Last year the Ministry of Education and Training gave nearly $2 billion in operating grants to Ontario's universities. I'm aware that there are those who say that that's not enough and that the system needs more. But what is clear is that our universities and this government must work together to find new ways of providing services.

That is why I have written today to the Ontario Council on University Affairs and asked it to conduct a review of the system of distributing grants to Ontario's universities. As you know, OCUA provides advice to me on funding requirements, the allocation of funds, graduate and professional program approvals and any other matters related to the university system. In conducting the review, I have indicated to OCUA that the objectives to consider are as follows.

The second objective is teaching. It's clear that there must be a stronger emphasis on teaching in our universities. Teaching must have a more central role in our universities and finding different ways to deliver university programs to the public must be part of the discussions in this area.

While emphasizing the role of teaching and the learning process, we also recognize the significant role of research in our universities. The relationship of research to teaching and the appropriateness of various sources of funding for research deserve examination in the context of provincial resource allocation.

The third objective is the role universities have in an integrated educational system. It's essential that our universities move to develop a system which permits the transfer of credits not only between universities, but between the college and university sectors and from previous learning experiences. This must be done more easily than the current system allows.

It is critical for the wellbeing of our universities and the province that we have in place a funding system that is suited to meet our priorities with the resources we have available.

With these objectives in mind, the Ontario Council on University Affairs will examine the current breakdown of spending between teaching, administration, research and community service. OCUA will look at the balance between these areas as well as the accountability for the resources that are dedicated to each.

I want to assure the universities that during this review the corridor system of funding will continue to allocate grants and operate within the existing accountability provisions.

In conducting the review, I'm confident that council will consult thoroughly and widely with students, faculty and staff of the institutions as well as provincial organizations and professional associations. I also encourage the council to communicate with groups representing alumni, parents, labour and employer organizations.

I look forward to receiving the OCUA's advice on this very important issue late in 1994.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me say to the Minister of Transportation, in regard to his project with graduated licences, that I'm pleased to see the bill finally introduced. As the minister knows, and as he acknowledged, we've been working with him for quite some time. In fact, the ministry has been working on this project for more than four years and we now finally see it coming to fruition.

I think all of us would like to make sure that we have a debate still in this House, but then that it is implemented. I'm sure it will in fact lead to the safety of our young people and of any new drivers in the province. We're looking forward to the debate, we're looking forward to seeing precisely what is in the bill and we will continue to work with the minister and the ministry on this project.

I should say, though, that as late as this morning we didn't really know what was going to be announced this afternoon, and there were going to be all kinds of other measures that really had nothing to do with the graduated licences. I do hope, however, I say to the minister, to see Bill 74 as well come forward still. We will deal with it. We have already indicated that we also want to have discussion on this. We're supportive and we're looking forward to that measure.

I should say that in his statement the minister is very proud of his safety initiatives and refers to Bill 47. But Minister, just before I came into this House -- and this is the problem: you're mixing apples with oranges. Your Information and Privacy Commissioner has just sent us a letter saying that he has the most serious questions about Bill 47. He feels that, really, the government ought to withdraw it. Here's what your privacy commissioner says, "We believe that the Ministry of Transportation needs to re-examine the use of photo-radar and assess other possible mechanisms which may be utilized to achieve improved road safety."

We want to work with you on road safety. I think graduated licences are one step in the right direction. Photo-radar is a totally different matter. I hope we get an opportunity to discuss that as well.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's saving lives.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): There's not one shred of evidence.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mills: I can give you plenty.

Mr Harris: Send it over.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Durham East to please come to order.

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The good news is that the government has recognized that we've got some fundamental problems in our university system in this province. It's recognized that these problems are directly related to funding and it recognizes as well that unless this government shows some leadership, these problems will not go away.

I hope the minister will direct the council to do whatever it can to establish a funding system which recognizes that university students, whether part-time or full-time, young or old are, in so far as the university is concerned, their client group. Universities exist, obviously, to fulfil a number of obligations, but one of them surely is to serve students and not the other way around.

For this reason, a new formula for funding should reward a university for good teaching, for smaller class sizes and for more contact time. Of course, the university funding must also be geared in such a manner as to reward a university for being accessible to all Ontarians.

University accountability is another big issue of the day and I hope the minister will direct the council to make recommendations as to how universities can be made more accountable: more accountable to students, to taxpayers, to society as a whole. We've got to look at questions like tenure, like sabbatical, like allocation of resources between teaching and research, between applied versus theoretical research. We've got to look at the programs we're offering in this province. We've got to ask ourselves whether those are the kinds of programs we want our universities to offer.

If the council shrinks from these questions, it won't be doing a thorough job and I'm convinced these questions can be asked and addressed in an intelligent manner without unduly interfering with the autonomous role we need our universities to play in our society. Undoubtedly, in the halls of academe, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when we broach these kinds of questions, but this government and the council have an obligation to explore that thoroughly in the best interests of the people of this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You're zapping the students with tuition increases when you said you'd abolish them, and you're underfunding the universities.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I welcome the announcement by the minister today of the photo-radar bill. Sorry, Freudian slip; I don't welcome that. I welcome the announcement by the minister today on graduated licensing. This is an announcement which is overdue.

I took the trouble before coming into the House of looking up when I first asked a question to the minister on the issue of graduated licences and it was in November 1991, shortly after I became Transportation critic. Minister, you will recognize that throughout the piece I have been asking you, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to move forward with this very important legislation to make our roads safer and to help our children, and adults who become new drivers, to be integrated into the road system more safely.

I will read the legislation with great interest and I anticipate that there won't be significant changes over the draft legislation which we looked at in the summer recess. You will recall, Minister, that during that time we expressed some concerns with the timing. We believe you should have brought this bill in for first and second reading in the spring and we should have been working on committee during the summer, working with a second reading, and then indeed we should have been able to have implemented it this fall.

Having said that about this bill, I want to move on to the great concern I have. The fact is that your ministry has been trying to pressure the opposition parties into accepting an omnibus bill. The reason for this omnibus bill -- I see the minister is pointing his finger at the Liberals; that may well be.

Minister, we need to have longer-truck legislation. You have Bill 74 that you brought in during the spring session. You could have moved forward with this. Instead of doing that, you tried to tack it on to this legislation.

Will you expeditiously move forward with this very important legislation, and in the meantime, will you cancel the fees you're charging for the permits so those people who are waiting for this legislation can immediately order the trucks to stimulate our industry?

REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY FINANCING

I think it's extremely important that in his letter he emphasized that the students going to our universities must be qualified students and that we're looking for standards first. In fact, he says -- this is important -- not in his own words but by inference, even for underrepresented groups.

I think that the questionnaire we talked about last week left the wrong impression and I hope he takes a look at the wording on this now that I have seen it. It did leave the wrong impression. So we're pleased with the letter today, but we're not pleased with that questionnaire. It sends the wrong message.

I think it's extremely important that he's recognized that universities are important to Ontario's future economic growth and prosperity, that a knowledgeable population will have a better chance and that training and upgrading are equally important.

Transfer of credits and integration across Canadian universities, not just Ontario universities, are extremely important. I think we have to have Canadian standards. Our young people should be encouraged to study in other provinces and sometimes in other countries, but more importantly, we have to get a handle on what's happening here now.

Rationalization has never been more important. I think we want the minister to take a look at New Directions, Volume Two, where we have given some ideas on how this can be accomplished.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT HOTEL EXPENDITURES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Over the past three years, we have brought forward example after example of government waste, but your government still refuses to do anything about it.

Earlier today, I tried to contact the Workplace Health and Safety Agency but couldn't reach anyone because 77 staff members were out of the office at a two-day staff meeting at the posh Guild Inn. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency's offices, as you may know, are on Bloor Street in Toronto. I don't know how big the meeting rooms are at their Bloor Street offices, but there are free meeting rooms at Queen's Park, all within walking distance.

My question to you is, why is the government paying thousands of dollars to hold these meetings at the Guild Inn instead of using the free government meeting rooms in the Macdonald Block, and why has this government done nothing to stop the wasteful use of hotel space for meetings that could be held right here at Queen's Park?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member has raised a question that has been raised here a couple of times before. On every occasion when it's been raised before, when we checked into the meeting rooms that were or were not available at Queen's Park, they were all being utilized. They are utilized on almost a full-time basis.

The member has raised the question again today. I'm prepared to look into it because I don't know the answer to his question. We will look into it, but the member should remember that the meeting rooms that are available here at Queen's Park are at a well over 80% utilization rate all of the time.

Mr Mahoney: The minister should know they are available -- we've checked it out -- and they are free.

Minister, this is not the first time that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has got into trouble for wasteful hotel spending. In the spring of 1992, these same civil servants held a two-day meeting at the posh Queens Landing Inn in Niagara-on-the-Lake. When we questioned the government at that time, the Minister of Labour justified the cost by saying the civil servants got a good deal on the rooms. Now the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has decided to pay $120 per night for 77 staff members to stay at a two-day retreat at the Guild Inn.

Let me just give you an example of the type of place they're staying in, for your information. It's called: "A garden sanctuary, Toronto's most treasured resort, a country retreat in the city. Set on the crest of the Scarborough Bluffs, the Guild Inn sits among 90 acres of forest lawns and woodland trails. The charm and elegance of our guest rooms, with their picturesque views, will delight visitors."

Minister, how can you justify this? What are you going to do to cancel this waste of taxpayers' money, and what are you going to do to ensure it doesn't happen again?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite makes very good use of a promotional man's or woman's lovely words describing the setting. I would suggest to him, though, that the words describing virtually any accommodations here in Toronto are very similarly written.

I've said I would look into this matter. I don't know what decisions were made or what accommodations were required or what other accommodations were available. I'll look at that.

Mr Mahoney: I understand you could get a free meeting room and lunch included for $7 at the Macdonald Block instead of the Guild Inn.

I'm glad the minister mentions that those might be words used to describe other facilities in and around Toronto, because the retreat at the Guild Inn is just one example of questionable hotel costs expended by this government. After they promised to crack down on this kind of wasteful spending, after the notorious SkyDome staff meetings, nothing seems to have been done.

Just looking through the public accounts book, which I'm sure you're familiar with, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in hotel bills spent by this government last year. In fact, this document only lists the worst offenders, where costs by any ministry exceed $40,000.

Minister, let me give you some examples: The Ministry of Labour at the Holiday Inn, $81,000; Management Board at the Chestnut Park Hotel, $47,000; Management Board at the Constellation, $63,000; Skills Development at the Royal York, $61,000; Skills Development at the Holiday Inn, $54,000; the Attorney General, $51,000; the Attorney General, $79,000; the Ramada Inn, the Attorney General, $50,000; Transportation, the Sundial Inn, $72,000. The list goes on and on.

Minister, answer the question directly: What is going on? When is this government going to do something about controlling its spending that's currently out of control?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member again is very good at a wonderful flourish here in the House. I'm going to answer his question in three ways: firstly, by saying that this government that he says has done nothing has taken very aggressive initiatives at reducing expenditures, and we'll stack the numbers up against those same kinds of dollars spent by the Liberal administration for five years any day of the week: reductions in travel costs, reductions in accommodation costs, reductions in overtime by 50%.

This government has done a wonderful job. There's still more to be done, perhaps, but we've made significant progress in dealing with the kind of extravagance those characters dealt with as a norm around this place.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question on one of my favourite subjects, namely photo-radar, is to the Minister of Transportation. Earlier today Ontario's independent privacy commissioner, Mr Tom Wright, released a detailed critique of your policy for photo-radar contained in Bill 47, a bill currently before the Legislature. In his detailed critique, the province's independent privacy commissioner raises a whole host of concerns and objections to your policy.

Minister, have you seen Mr Wright's letter of November 24 in this connection, and what will your response and the response of your government be to the objections contained in Mr Wright's letter of today?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member from Renfrew brings a most valid and interesting point indeed. That's the reason why, before proceeding on a full-time value, you have a pilot project. We have no intentions, absolutely none, to invade. In fact the privacy of individuals is a sacred trust with this government. We're only interested in the safety measures initiative that we've announced.

I haven't seen the letter today, for the very simple reason that it demands meticulous analysis, line-by-line examination and our possibility to comply, and we're looking forward to it. More important perhaps, only in the context of the major announcement that we've made regarding graduated drivers' licences, as soon as we leave this august body, the first order of business will be, as a team, to look at the recommendations, for they are indeed taken very, very seriously.

Mr Conway: Happily for the minister, I have a copy of Mr Wright's letter, and I will take a moment to summarize the views of Ontario's independent privacy commissioner on this photo-radar matter. In his letter to the Chair of the legislative committee, Mr Wright observes about your government's policy in this connection a number of things. Among his concerns are the following.

Your photo-radar legislation, he believes, has the potential to violate Ontario's protection-of-privacy legislation. Furthermore, the province's independent privacy commissioner concludes that your photo-radar legislation will not deter speeding, as the government hopes and has advertised, because, the province's independent privacy commissioner notes, the policy does not have the consequential aspects of drivers' licence suspensions or demerit points. In fact, according to Mr Wright, the policy is a licence for some people to speed, if the British Columbia example is to be credited.

Furthermore, the province's independent privacy commissioner writes today that your policy in this connection is a licence for the government to raise money.

Given this detailed and stinging critique of your policy on principle grounds by our privacy commissioner, will you not, Minister, today commit to withdrawing this legislation and doing as the commissioner suggests: looking for better alternatives?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Really, I can only say the following once, and it's not by way of compliment but simply observation: The member opposite is unique in compounding the errors of misinformation.

On the one hand, we have a privacy commissioner when it suits the purpose, and in the very same vein, in the same breath, that privacy commissioner becomes the expert on transportation. The member across is a juggling artist, a conjurer of illusions that find better auspices under a tent or in a sideshow or a tombola.

We will look at the letter. Everywhere where photo-radar has been introduced to save lives we have seen the consequences. We have seen a drastic reduction in the number of fatalities. This is our focus. Let's not get away from it.

You started with privacy. We respect privacy, we commit ourselves. It's a sacred trust with this government, and photo-radar is also a sacred trust in making our roads safer.

Mr Conway: Finally, this week's internal government magazine, Topical, has a front-page story highlighting the government's new attitude to raising taxes, the so-called non-tax sources of revenue on fees. This particular edition of Topical holds out photo-radar as a very fine example of how this new revenue-grabbing can be done. The government's clear intent is highlighted in this week's Topical.

Today we have the privacy commissioner's letter which undresses your photo-radar policy and leaves it standing naked in the wind. The only thing that's hanging out there is a revenue grab.

Would the minister not agree with the privacy commissioner that the time has now come for the government to stop, to listen and to look for a better public policy in this connection, a public policy that has as its primary concern road safety and not tax-grabbing?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Such eloquence. Surely, during these busy times, the member opposite has better things to do with his time than reeling off, peeling off this parochial Topical review, unless he's looking for a job.

The people of Renfrew who are listening today and place their trust in this member are not paying his handsome wages simply to have him read newspapers in the Legislature.

What is being said here is in error. There is no direct quote from the party. This is how desperate the opposition is. They keep talking about money; we keep talking about saving lives.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day. Within --

Interjection.

Mr Harris: No, it's not me. I'm still asking the question.

Within the last hour we learned that Standard and Poor's has lowered Ontario's credit rating from AA to AA-. According to the agency, in making this announcement today, the decision reflects your government's weakened resolve to contain its deficit both this year and in succeeding years. It is also thought, Madam Minister, that other bond rating agencies are ready to follow shortly.

Can you tell us today what impact this will have on our deficit, on our ability to borrow money and on the cost of that money if we can borrow it in the future?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will attempt to give the member as full an answer as I can and follow up with any additional information directly from the Minister of Finance at a later date.

The news from Standard and Poor's today is certainly very disappointing for this government. In fact, we are very surprised at the actions that have been taken.

The members opposite laugh, but with respect to this government's record in controlling expenditures, there has not been a record of any other government that matches this. For the first time ever in the history of this province, we have seen program expenditures actually go down this year from last year after years and years of seeing them raised at double-digit rates.

We have taken extraordinary action, members opposite will know: the actions with respect to $4 billion of savings through the expenditure control measures, $2 billion through the social contract measures. The deficit would have been projected to have been around $17 billion and we've been able to hold it to under $10 billion.

For the rating agency to say that there is a weakened resolve with respect to expenditure control in this government is dead wrong. It's very surprising that they would use that as their excuse.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: In response to the specific question about whether or not we think that this will cause problems in terms of borrowing money, in fact the credit rating agency, in downgrading us to a AA- at this point, also put a stable outlook on the government's fiscal situation --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- which means the fact that it's secure for borrowing, and we should be in a position to continue to borrow with ease in the markets at this time.

Mr Harris: Actually, I'm rather shocked that the minister says she was surprised. Last week on the Dow Jones wire, Walter Schroeder, president of Dominion Bond Rating Service, from whom we have yet to hear, was telling all the money-lending agencies things such as this:

"Ontario wants to hit $10 billion as the magic number, but by our calculations, the deficit is closer to $11.8 billion. The province is moving capital spending from its own budget on to crown agencies and rerecording those expenditures on roads and buildings as loans instead of the true deficit figures."

Schroeder also goes on to say that the impact of not believing your numbers, of the smoke and mirrors, is such that "it would have a significant impact on Ontario's liquidity and access to long-term debt." That is what the net result is, he says, and this is a week ago. Today you tell me you're surprised.

Minister, the real world out there is trying to tell you, your Premier, your cabinet, your Treasurer and your government something. It's trying to tell you you can no longer live on a credit card, for ever borrowing more and more as if it was so much play money. It's also telling you that smoke-and-mirrors accounting is not going to work, that they see through that, that the true deficit is now approaching $12 billion.

You knew this was coming today. Your Premier knew it was coming today. The Treasurer knew it was coming today. Yet they're not in the House. We've had no statement and we've had no acknowledgement. Can you tell us why this crisis in Ontario's financial state didn't even warrant the appearance of the Treasurer and a statement in the Legislature today?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member across knows full well that the Premier is in Guelph at this time, and quite frankly I think that we can have this exchange with respect to this issue. The Treasurer will be available to make a statement later on this afternoon. I will continue to say that we are disappointed and surprised at the action of this rating agency, particularly suggesting that this is as a result of a weakened resolve with respect to expenditure control.

Earlier this year the Treasurer made public the fact that as a result of reconciliation with federal government and provincial income taxes, our revenues were another $800 million lower than what we had expected and what we had forecasted. We moved aggressively to address that through offsets on the expenditure side to the tune of $500 million. That is an incredible response. We are continuing to control expenditures.

Let me speak now, as a member here, not as a representative of the Minister of Finance. I want to say that --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please shorten your answer.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- there's something that surprises me about how credit rating agencies act in this situation. The federal government deficit, we know for last year, went from a projected $35 billion to over $40 billion, and the credit agencies didn't blink an eye. For this fiscal year, next week we will hear it will go from a projection of $42 billion to up to $45 billion.

Let me say that I still remain surprised and disappointed at this action. I believe that we are doing everything we can to control expenditures, but we are governing in a way that is fair to the recipients of services in this province.

Mr Harris: All I want to say to the minister is this: These are the same bond rating agencies that for 42 years gave us an AAA rating when Progressive Conservative governments managed the affairs of this province. They are the same people. You started losing it on a slippery slope, you big-spending Liberals, mismanagers, and you've carried on the same way. They're the same referees.

Minister, the consequences of this are very serious.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Question?

Mr Harris: The higher the cost of borrowing, the less money there is for human needs. There is less money for education, there is less money for health care, there is less money for social programs for those who need them, there is less money for skills training, all those programs, those social safety nets that for 42 years we nurtured and cultured and built in this province.

What this means is that the fiscal deficit and the human deficit that we hear so much about these days --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask your cooperation, please. Question?

Mr Harris: The fiscal deficit and the human deficit we hear so much about these days in fact are one and the same thing, and it has become a crisis because you could not manage the taxpayers' money.

Minister, would you not agree with me that this crisis calls for a new budget today, or at the very least a definitive interim statement on the serious deterioration and worsening state of Ontario's finances?

Hon Ms Lankin: In a moment, I'll come to how Tories share information about deficits and projected deficits, but let me say the Treasurer has released Ontario Finances and the documents that show exactly where we are with respect to the projections for this year's deficit. We have revised those figures in light of the reduction in provincial income tax reconciliation from the federal government. We have revised it in result of further actions that we've taken on the expenditure side.

Let me say that the province's credit rating remains in an AA category. We remain fully capable of borrowing and we are a strong credit performer with respect to the bond agencies. I really, really think that we have to put in perspective what the member opposite is saying with respect to this being a crisis in the fiscal situation. We remain on track with respect to a strong agenda for controlling expenditures.

But I want to say that we believe we have to have a balance in our fiscal policy. We have to have one that helps us achieve the downward tracking on the deficit but allows us to continue to preserve services in this province and to preserve jobs in this province. There's a balance to be struck here, and to hear the member opposite, in light of the federal Tories' skyrocketing deficit, try to tell us that we haven't been clear with people about numbers is a bit hard to take. He talks about preserving all of these social services and programs.

This is the man who on the weekend said that if he were Premier, he would unlegislate, unregulate, untax, ungovern. This is Attila the Hun across the way, let me tell you.

We have a balanced approach, one which will control expenditures, which will preserve services and preserve jobs in this province, and we're sticking to it.

Mr Harris: I knew all the union people were in the audience Saturday; I didn't know you were there as well. But welcome to our party any time.

The balance that we're looking for is a balance between what you say you are going to do and the action that belies what in fact is happening in this province. That's the balance that's missing that the bond rating agencies are seeing through.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the acting deputy Deputy Premier for the day.

Rumours are floating around that Ontario Hydro may soon sell some of its divisions and assets to the private sector. On October 28, for example, the Premier said, "We must examine how we can marry the best traditions of the province and the best traditions of a public utility with the reality of the marketplace." Bob Rae said this. Minister, can we expect an announcement on the privatization of Ontario Hydro in the near future from your government?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will refer that to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): There are no plans to privatize Ontario Hydro.

Mr Harris: That's fine for you to say. You may not have plans, but obviously your Premier and Maurice Strong are saying other things. Hydro is forecasting a $2-billion loss this year. It has restructured its internal operations to make it more attractive to the private sector. Hydro chair Maurice Strong has asked Premier Rae to review the legislation over their finances. Yesterday, the Premier said, "It is absolutely essential for us to lever the public dollars that we have in partnership with the private sector to get things moving."

It sounds as though we're on the brink of privatizing Hydro. Are the Premier and Maurice Strong on the brink of doing that?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am sure that Maurice Strong is not going to engage in brinkmanship. I would indicate to the member that we certainly are in a very serious situation with regard to the future of Ontario Hydro. The restructuring that has been going on is significant. It has achieved a significant downsizing of Ontario Hydro. Yet the financial situation related to the decline in the demand for electricity and the significant debt that Ontario Hydro is facing, thanks to previous governments' decisions to build Darlington, are serious problems.

The restructuring, though, is making it possible for the subsidiaries of Ontario Hydro to indeed get involved with the private sector, to be involved in joint ventures in order to ensure that we can move forward together to enhance the economy and the job opportunities of this province.

Mr Harris: I'm not sure it's acceptable to blame George Drew, who embarked upon the electrification of this province, one of the great tools that for 42 years provided us with hope and jobs and prosperity and opportunity. However, if that's what you wish to do in response, that's fine.

On October 28, when asked about a British-style privatization, Maurice Strong said, "If we move, it won't be ideologically driven; it will be driven by the practical necessity, the advantage, the need of Ontario." That's why he's going to move.

Given the fact that the finances are falling through the roof, given the fact that the deficit is mushrooming far in excess of the previous budget, that the deficit is now at $2 billion at Hydro, there's a lot of uncertainty about what is happening.

We know you are desperate to find a way to repair your finances. What concerns many is that Ontario Hydro will be put on the chopping block for no other reason than to address your financial woes: not for the sake of efficiency, not for the sake of ensuring an adequate supply of affordable power.

We would like this assurance: that before there is any proposal to fire-sale agencies or divisions of Ontario Hydro, there will be a full debate in this Legislature and full disclosure so that we can ensure that it's not just a fire sale to try and grab some dollars to shore up your treasury, but that in fact it's in the interests of Ontarians.

Hon Mr Wildman: The

article to which the leader refers specifically indicates that Mr Strong said there would not be a British-style privatization in this province. In fact, I think all of us can be proud of the fact that this government has attracted such a qualified public servant to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro that has taken the significant changes and moves to restructure that corporation for the future of this province in a way that no other government has been prepared to do since I've served in this Legislature for 17 years.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Deputy Premier as well. Today we had confirmation of Standard and Poor's downgrading the government's credit rating. The minister will know that the NDP government inherited a solid AAA credit rating from the previous administration.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: That's a fact. That's a simple fact.

It was in 1991 that you were downgraded the first time. In 1992, you were downgraded a second time. Today we heard what I hoped we wouldn't hear but I suspected we would; that is, that the Bob Rae government has been downgraded a third time.

My question to the minister is this: What are the costs of this downgrade? We believe that the incremental cost simply on borrowing this year will be $25 million, and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers of this province will be $200 million a year in increased debt-servicing cost. Can you confirm that this is the number we're talking about, and if that is the number, what does the government plan to do to correct that?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member will probably know that I don't have that number readily available for him. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would be able to answer that question more specifically.

With respect to the likelihood of increased costs this year, we do remain fully able to borrow on the markets. The rating, as you will probably know, as it moved from AA to AA- and also went from a negative watch to a stable watch. So that actually is one that assures the markets with respect to the province's borrowing. Most of the province's borrowing is not engaged in short-term borrowing; it's longer-term borrowing, which hedges us against changes in interest rates but also in terms of this credit rating. So in terms of the impact this year, I don't have the number, but I think it's mitigated by some of those factors that I raise.

What I want to say to the member is that, regarding the credit rating downgrade, he makes reference to the fact that this has been the third time this government has experienced that. It's the third time over a period of what has been the most serious recession this country has faced since the days of the Great Depression. He compares that to an AAA rating during the boom years of the late 1980s. He says that's simply a fact.

I have to say it's simply a fact that at that time, there was tremendous economic activity across this country, across North America. We're at a time in which a tremendous recession has taken place, and not just in this jurisdiction. In fact, we remain the third-highest credit rating of all the provinces in Canada. So I would like the member to put that in perspective when he asks these questions.

Mr Phillips: I think that for the minister to indicate this isn't extremely serious indicates she doesn't understand the implications of this. Three downgrades in three years is dramatic. It's serious. It is sending an enormous signal to the province of Ontario. It will cost the taxpayers $200 million a year in extra interest costs.

I would say to the minister that one of the reasons they've done that is they don't trust the books. They don't believe the numbers. I hate to say that, because I happen to have confidence in the Minister of Finance; I don't have much confidence any longer in the Premier. We have outlined in documents several instances where the government is not coming clean with the numbers. The rating agencies have seen through the government numbers, and that is why they've downgraded it.

Will the minister today undertake to come back to the Legislature with a budget that reflects what the rating agencies know but what the people of the province haven't been told; that is, that the real deficit in this province is well over $11 billion right now? That's what the rating agencies have seen through, and that's why we have a lower rating today. Will the minister undertake to come back to the Legislature and present the Legislature with a true set of numbers that will allow us to see what the rating agencies have seen?

Hon Frances Lankin: I reject the premise of the member's question. In the Minister of Finance's documents there has always been very clearly set out what the deficit projections are, what the capital budget requirements are and what the total consolidated borrowing requirements are. Those numbers are not hidden; they are all there. They are in the budget documents. They are in all of the Ontario Finances.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Bunk. That is bunk and you know it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: For the member to say that we haven't come clean with these numbers is incorrect. It is true that the auditor, as part of a national move, is suggesting that all provinces move to consolidate capital and operating budgets. That is totally different from saying that we are not showing these numbers. The consolidated borrowing requirement is there and it's very clear.

Mr Stockwell: Why wouldn't the auditor sign the books?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West. Minister.

Hon Ms Lankin: I didn't for one moment suggest that the fiscal situation facing the government was not a serious one. If this government did not believe it was not serious, we wouldn't have taken extraordinary steps to move from what was a projected $17-billion deficit to bring it down below $10 billion. Of course we think that this is serious, but for the member to give credence to the stated reasons behind the credit rating downgrade, that we are somehow not controlling expenditures, is to mislead the public.

We clearly have, for the first time in history, brought in an expenditure program which is less than it was in the previous budget, the first time in the history of this province that has ever happened.

I would conclude by saying that we will have an opportunity in the next few months, as the new federal government tries to come to terms with the inherited deficit and increased deficit, projected to be more than $12 billion over projection, to develop what I hope will be a national response to this situation, which exists in every province and federally.

I would point out that the federal government can borrow money cheaper, has interest rate policy, monetary policy, has policies in its hands that provinces don't. I hope the new federal government will not continue the practice of passing off the debt to the provinces as the former federal government did, to the tune of $28 billion that we are paying for in Ontario now.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to try to shorten your answers.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Minister, it's 48 days today since the murder -- perhaps a more appropriate word is "execution" -- of Constable Joe MacDonald in Sudbury. Following that murder, as you know, Mr Clinton Suzack, an individual who was out on early release granted by the Ontario parole board, was charged along with another individual for that murder.

You committed yourself to having a so-called independent inquiry conducted within 30 days following the murder. As I said at the outset, it's 48 days now, Mr Minister. Can you indicate to the House, to the people of the province, especially Constable MacDonald's family, where that report stands and when we can expect to have it tabled in this House?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As I indicated in this House, I did commence an investigation into and a review of the decision. I have received the investigator's report. Upon receiving that report, I forwarded it to freedom of information officers as well as to the Attorney General, criminal law division. I have been advised by them that as a result of freedom of information considerations and, in particular, possible prejudicing matters that are now before the courts, it is not legally appropriate for me to release that report.

It is my intention, however, that at the conclusion of the matters that are before the courts, given freedom of information considerations at that time, the report will indeed be publicly tabled and made available for all to review.

Mr Runciman: That's a nauseating response. That's the impact it has on me. I'm telling you, we are just sick and tired of this kind of response in terms of investigations like this. We get the same kind of response time after time: No answers in respect to this. When we do finally get a version of it, it's politically sanitized to protect the tail of NDP appointees and not to try to get to the bottom of some very serious concerns.

That board is dealing with something like 57 reviews a week. We had an individual murdered and we need some answers. The family certainly needs answers. Police officers in Sudbury want answers. I think the public of Ontario wants some answers.

The terms of reference of the study had nothing to do with the arrest of that individual; they had to do with how the parole board came to this decision. That's all, Mr Minister; nothing to do with what you're talking about, nothing that's before the courts.

We want to know from you today, preferably today or in the very near future, what action you're going to take in response to what occurred here. Obviously, a mistake was made. We have all the facts; you have all the facts. There's no justification for that individual being out on the streets. You know it and I know it.

When are you going to tell us exactly what you're going to do in response to what happened, especially Mr Suzack being out on the streets?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I have stated already that I have accepted the investigator's findings. I am taking and will continue to take any action that is appropriate, but unlike the honourable member across the way who wants to create his own justice system, we have an established justice system. I have asked the Attorney General's office, not myself or my personal assistants, but the Attorney General's ministry, criminal law division, for a legal opinion as to the releasability of the report and I have advised the honourable member of the advice I was given. For me to do otherwise would be an absolute abdication of the responsibilities bestowed upon me as Solicitor General.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We know how important it is that social assistance dollars go where they are most needed. There's a good deal of public concern and sensitivity, I might add, about the issue of welfare abuse, even though we know it's not widespread, only about 3% of social assistance expenditures. Our government is taking some initiatives in this area.

Recently in my riding, the city of London council hired investigators to recover social assistance dollars. My questions are, how much money will be recovered, how will this money be reallocated and how will this reallocation be cost-effective?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member having given me notice of this question so that I was able to provide her with some details as well as dealing with the broader issue that is raised.

As I've indicated on various occasions in the House, we do take the question of abuse and fraud in the system quite seriously. The specific initiative the member refers to is one of a number of initiatives that are under way now which have come out as a result of the enhanced verification initiative we put into the system last spring as part of our expenditure control plan.

In this particular instance there is a team of additional staff being hired with additional funding from the ministry. The expectation the city of London has set is that it believes it can recover something in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million or $2.6 million that is now, it believes, being overpaid and that when that is netted against the cost of the staff it will result in a net savings of about $1.9 million. Obviously, those dollars will then be used in the system to ensure that support continues to be given to those people who need it.

HIGH-ALCOHOL BEER

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I'd like to ask a page to take over some information. Madam Minister, my question to you is on the issue of high-alcohol beer. You will know that these beers are at least 42% stronger than regular beer and 78% stronger than light beer. I have received information from the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving which indicates some disturbing information obtained from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, and I've just sent that information over to you.

I would like to give you one example of the information we've received: A female up to the weight of 120 pounds will be over the legal limit for one hour after consuming only one bottle of high-alcohol beer.

Minister, your government has done nothing to ensure that consumers are aware of how strong these beers are relative to what they are accustomed to. How do you justify the fact that your ministry has done absolutely nothing to educate consumers about the impact of extra-strength beer?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'm sure the member is aware that I met with -- I'm trying to remember all of the names, all of the anti-drinking and driving groups -- MADD and PRIDE and some of the others about this very issue shortly after Labatt's released its high-alcohol-content beer. In fact, to the member, who asked why I didn't do something about it, I have done something about it. I expressed that very day my concerns, which are very similar to the issues expressed by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and all of these groups.

What we have done is meet with the industry and tell them very clearly that they were to take some volunteer action immediately and get back to us; otherwise we would be looking at higher pricing and modifications in advertising. The industry has come together and has in fact come up with a voluntary code around this which I am tentatively endorsing at this point in time, but we will be watching very closely to see how this works.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, your government has taken absolutely no action around the issue of responsible advertising. Yes, the industry has voluntarily agreed to a national code on marketing high-alcohol beer, but you have merely said that you are pleased and you endorse the code.

In April 1992 you said that you didn't think voluntary guidelines would do enough to eliminate, in that case, sexism in beer advertisements. Yet now you seem to believe that voluntary guidelines are good enough to ensure that consumers, particularly impressionable young people, are fully informed about the effect of extra-strength beer.

Minister, voluntary guidelines are one thing. You have totally abdicated responsibility on this issue. Will you commit today to bringing in a series of public service announcements informing young people, informing the servers of beverage alcohol and informing the general public about the impact of high-alcohol beer?

Hon Ms Churley: First I'd like to say that high-alcohol beer is not new in Ontario. About 15% of the market already is high-alcohol beer. Some of it I think goes up to 31%. The introduction by an Ontario company, a Canadian company, of a new high-alcohol-content beer has certainly raised the issue. I think that's positive. But it's not the first high-alcohol-content beer ever to be introduced in Ontario. They have been available to the public for quite some time.

We are working directly with the industry, and I think successfully. When I met with MADD and the others, we talked about the kinds of issues that are of the greatest concern. Certainly, marketing to youth is obviously a very grave concern. I expressed that to the industry. They know what needs to be done.

Are you suggesting that the government, when we're in a recession, when today you're all on your feet talking about how high the deficit is, take on the responsibility of the industry to start advertising and letting people know out there itself and paying for it itself that this is a higher-alcohol-content beer? I'm sorry, but they cannot keep having it both ways. It is their responsibility.

I, as minister, and this government are making sure that they meet their responsibilities and market this correctly and properly and let the people of Ontario know about this beer. That is their responsibility and they should pay for that.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. What does the judiciary think of your plan to automate court reporting in Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think it's fair to say that there are mixed feelings. We certainly have had some judges, particularly those who are familiar with and have taken the time and the trouble to look at the modern technology that is available, who are willing to see through the pilot testing of automated court reporting whether or not we can guarantee the integrity of the record, and they are prepared to look at the situation in that way. They certainly would not be prepared to go to a system which includes all automated reporting at this point in time, because there is some nervousness on the part of the bench.

The other issue is that our judiciary works closely with court reporters and has genuine anxiety for the sanctity of the jobs of the people with whom they've worked, and has made very strong representation on behalf of those employees, that they be redeployed and still have work available to them if they are affected by the pilot projects.

Mr Harnick: I wish the Attorney General had the same concern for the sanctity of those jobs as the judiciary does. The real crux of this problem is that we have the minister telling the judiciary how to administer its courts.

I introduced a private member's resolution that would have transferred the responsibility for the financial and administrative control of the courts to the judiciary from the minister. Do you not think that in administering the courts in Ontario, the judiciary should be allowed to decide how to allocate the resources available?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are certainly moving, in the work that we're doing with the Provincial Division, through the memorandum of understanding that I signed with the chief judge, towards a day when there is more management responsibility for the judiciary itself. I certainly support the ability of the judiciary to have a greater sense of control over the management. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the ministry, to this House, to the government and to the taxpayers of Ontario, to be mindful of the costs of administration of justice.

One of the issues that we are facing is how to maintain the integrity of the court record and do that in a way which takes advantage of technology that has never been available before. We cannot afford to have our courts be the Jurassic Park of the technological era, and many of our judges are well aware of that. We also must be prepared to look at ways in which we can redeploy staff and make them more available so that as we reform the court system, we can use those employees in a way that is more flexible and in a way that allows us to have better administration of justice.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Back on the 17th of this month, the member for Mississauga West asked me: "Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King made an incorrect statement to the committee and misled the committee?" It's a question that had been asked in this House a number of times prior to that particular day, and the answer is the same as has been given in the past.

Mr King, as the member knows, reappeared before the committee to clarify any misunderstanding which may have arisen from his previous remarks, and the committee as well had a letter from the auditor saying that he was fully satisfied that the issues had been resolved between him and Mr King.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Obviously, the minister did not understand the question, because it had never been asked before. It couldn't have been asked before because Mr Di Santo made the remarks in committee the very day I asked you the question.

If I could help you, Minister, Mr King said in Hansard: "As a matter of fact, the company that held the real estate holdings of the new building that WCB is building had been audited by the public auditor." The auditor said that was not only not a matter of fact, that it was indeed incorrect. My question to Mr Di Santo was, "Do you agree with the auditor that Mr King's statement was incorrect, not a statement in fact, and indeed misleading to the committee?" Mr Di Santo said, in answer to my question, that Mr King's statement was wrong.

My question, Minister, was very simple. Do you agree with Mr Di Santo that Mr King's question was wrong and thereby misled the committee? If indeed you agree with your chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, will you fire Mr King?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I said earlier, I find it strange that the question keeps getting asked, when the auditor himself has said that he is satisfied with the answer he got back from Mr King. I would also say to the member across the way that I'm getting a little tired of his fishing expeditions and witchhunts with the board when the problems at the board are because of Bill 162, which you people were responsible for.

LANDSLIDE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, last June the people of Lemieux in my riding witnessed one of Ontario's largest landslides in its history. Over 20 hectares of land on leda clay, one of the world's most unstable soils, slid into the South Nation River, producing one of Ontario's greatest natural disasters. Incredible numbers of large trees, root systems and soil have accumulated to create a major, dangerous dam across the river, holding back a huge volume of sediment-laden water that awaits to rush down the river once the dam breaks.

Since June, there have been numerous attempts by various groups to approach you and your cabinet colleagues to impress upon you the horrible time bomb sitting there waiting to explode at any time. The federal government has made available $350,000 to hire people to clean up the mess this fall, sir, on condition that your government comes up with a measly $100,000 for the required specialized equipment.

That federal money is still waiting for your share that you refuse to contribute. Your delay in responding has caused the situation to become a lot more dangerous and expensive, to the point that some entrepreneurs are now refusing to get involved in proposals to clean up because of the serious risk to human lives.

Next spring, your government will definitely face a multimillion-dollar damage repair bill because you have refused to liberate $100,000 so far. As you and your government have been telling Ontarians that you are serious about reducing costs, why the heck would you rather spend millions over the next few years than come up with the $100,000 now?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I haven't refused to do anything. It's under the Minister of Natural Resources. I refer the question to him.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'd like to answer, Mr Speaker, but apparently it --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member has spoken eloquently, but I think he knows, as other members in this House know, that when you have this type of situation which might be termed a disaster, there is a process, and that process basically requires municipalities to come up with some of the money and the province will come up with some of the money. I've had ongoing discussions with the member. I know he's spoken to people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We will do what we can to help the situation, but the municipalities involved will also have to come up with some of the money.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mrs MacKinnon from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr65,

An Act to revive Region 2, I.W.A. Building Society.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr57,

An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc;

Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing, at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr57,

An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc. and Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, I believe you have a point of order.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I wish to advise the House that the report of a judicial inquiry, pursuant to

section 50 of the Courts of Justice Act, into the conduct of the Honourable Judge Walter Hryciuk was delivered to the Lieutenant Governor this morning.

The inquiry was recommended by the Ontario Judicial Council and was conducted by the Honourable Madam Justice Jean MacFarland of the Ontario Court (General Division). I have been provided with a copy of the report, and pursuant to the act it is now my duty to table the report in this assembly.

The report concludes that Judge Hryciuk's conduct is incompatible with the office of a judge and recommends that he be removed from office.

I will be taking a few days to consider the report and will have no further comment until I have concluded that review. Copies of the report are being distributed through the mail boxes to each member of the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)

On motion by Mr Pouliot, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Code de la route.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before you proceed, we have not yet had the tabling of the previous report. It must happen before you can move to the next order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make a statement?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Briefly, our government is committed, as you know, to making Ontario roads the safest in North America and this by 1998. Today, we're introducing graduated licensing legislation that will help us reach that goal. Traffic fatalities are a leading cause of death in this province. Sadly, traffic collisions are the leading killer of young people in Ontario between the ages of 16 and 24, but statistics show that all new drivers, regardless of their age, have a much higher collision rate than drivers with several years of experience.

Studies show that it takes between two and five years to develop all the driving skills and judgement needed to avoid collisions. This graduated licensing program, which already has the support of most members of the provincial Legislature, allows inexperienced drivers to gain driving experience gradually in conditions where they face low risks.

During the summer months, a committee of this Legislature sought public input on the draft bill tabled in the spring. Two changes --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm under the impression that these remarks at first reading of a bill should be only brief and note the high points of the legislation and not give some editorial.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills is absolutely right, and I wish that everybody would be aware that when a bill is introduced the remarks should be extremely brief. You're not debating the bill, you're not reading the bill, you're just giving a short explanation of the bill. So, Minister, I would ask you to abide to this.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, but this is crucial for the safety and in fact I'm speaking for some people who no longer have a voice --

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am about to conclude. First, only one passenger is allowed to ride in the front seat with a level 1 driver and that passenger must be accompanied by an experienced driver; second, a vehicle sign identifying a level 1 driver as a new driver will be voluntary; and, finally, for your consideration, kindly, graduated licensing will help curtail the more than 1,100 deaths and 90,000 victims that occur every year on Ontario roads.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You'll have ample time to debate it. Please. I've asked you to keep it short.

Hon Mr Pouliot: One sentence, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your kindness and your fairness, your courtesy indeed. The measures being introduced today build on our strategy to make Ontario's roads the safest in North America. I thank you for your courtesy and tact, Mr Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION / ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 16:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the standing committee on social development shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time but not later than 12 midnight on its regularly scheduled meeting days for the purpose of conducting public hearings; and that the committee shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Tuesday, December 7, 1993. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the abovenoted day.

At 5 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on social development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.

That two hours be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Why don't you time-allocate your own speech?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The member opposite suggests I should time-allocate my own speech and I shall do that in very short order. I will ask all honourable members to follow my example.

This time allocation motion dealing with Bill 100 is a time allocation motion that comes forward today simply because of an inability between myself and the opposition House leaders to reach agreement on the scheduling of witnesses before the social development committee hearing presentations on Bill 100.

The steering committee of that committee recommended, and the committee has requested, the right to sit additional hours to hear the witnesses. That's the request of the committee but, for whatever reason, we've been unable to get agreement out of the opposition House leaders and the two opposition caucuses to proceed to fulfil the wishes of the members to hear all of the delegates and to get this bill completed before the Legislature adjourns for the winter break.

I know that members opposite will get up and say that this government is again ramming through another piece of legislation, but I would suggest that the rhetoric here in the House is less a reflection of reality than the sincere comment of the committee members themselves and their desire to see this legislation completed and proclaimed in this province without any further undue delays.

Those members from all parties who have been involved in this issue I think better than the rest of us understand its importance rather than perhaps its partisan politics in the larger forum of this Legislative Assembly.

Again, it's with regret that I proceed with this time allocation motion, but the motion is a motion that's designed to allow the committee to sit the extra hours it has requested to hear the deputants who want to make presentations on this bill before we deal with the final passage of this legislation. It's unfortunate that it has to happen this way, but after several weeks of trying to reach agreement, as House leader for the government I've been left with very little other option. So here we are today.

I commend this motion to all members of the House in the understanding that sometimes those who do the work around issues like this are in fact correct in understanding the importance of a matter like this one proceeding and proceeding quickly.

Mr Offer: I am taking

part in this debate, and I wish that we did not have to once more debate another time allocation motion, another in a series by this government which has done nothing less than institutionalize time allocation in the Legislature, which, for another word, is just shutting out the public.

The member may talk about this as an issue of partisanship. Well, I get real worried when they speak of partisanship and that there shouldn't be any and then themselves embark on what clearly is the voyage of political partisanship in their motions, because what this type of a motion does is exclude the public. It excludes the public from taking

part in a committee process.

It excludes members of the Legislature from voicing the concerns of their constituents, from voicing the concerns of others who may not be their constituents but people interested in a piece of legislation, from using their member, from using a member of the Legislature, either by letter or through the constituency office or through Queen's Park, to say: "Here is the piece of legislation in a committee. Here is my concern, and I would like to be a part of that committee process, and, secondly, for you to bring forward the concern which I have raised."

In many cases, it doesn't matter what the issue itself is, it's the process that is most important, because when you institutionalize these time allocation motions, what you are doing is you are shutting the door on thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, preventing them from taking

part in a very real way as to how the legislation should proceed through the Legislature, as to how committees should progress.

The House leader today does nothing less than to say, "This time allocation is the stick that we are going to use to beat down anyone who wants to comment on a particular piece of legislation." The sad thing is that it is not the first time this weapon has been used. The government uses these types of weapons day in and day out.

I know that those who are speaking on the issue of photo-radar, another piece of legislation, are themselves the subject matter of time allocation. A piece of legislation which has caused great concern throughout the province --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is with regret I note that the House does not have a quorum. On such an important motion I think we should have a quorum, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: We are debating an important motion and it is a motion which is without question slamming the door on many people in this province, on many community groups and really, in large measure, it is stopping us as legislators from doing the thing for which we were elected.

Before the call took place I was talking about the fact that this is just another in a series by this government of institutionalizing time allocation, institutionalizing closure. I was using the example of Bill 47, I believe is the number, which is the photo-radar. It's a piece of legislation which has caused great concern throughout the province.

There are those who feel that that piece of legislation is wrong. They are concerned that the piece of legislation has nothing to do with highway safety, is rather a licence to speed, and the government has used time allocation, I believe two days, to hear the public on an important piece of legislation of great concern. This piece of legislation carries the same impact.

We have to start to ask ourselves, why is it that the government seeks to impose on the people of this province, not just on the members of the opposition and in fact on their own members, time allocation? Why is it that they seek to impose on the people of this province the shutting out, the locking of these legislative doors so that people who are concerned with pieces of legislation, people who want to take

part in committee processes, people who want to share their thoughts, their experiences, their expertise, can't do it? They can't do it because of motions such as this.

I know those who might be watching on the legislative channel either live or later on this evening will be saying, "What exactly is a time allocation motion?" Basically what it does is it limits debate and it limits the public consultation process. Basically what it does is it says to a vast number of people: "You can't take

part in this legislative process. You can't be part of a committee because we have allocated the time." That basically shuts people out, because there are many more people who want to be heard on this legislation and as well on other pieces of legislation.

It is a dangerous weapon. I don't refer to it as a tool. It is a dangerous weapon freely exercised by the government. Never before in the history of this province, I would predict, has time allocation been used by any government as much as this government now.

What does that say? It says that there is a government that is in chaos. It is a government that doesn't know how to order its own matters. It is a government that doesn't like to hear opposition, so the best way to do that is to shut the doors to any opposing views. Far be it that the opposition just comes from elected representatives. There is opposition on a vast array of legislation by this government throughout the province. The government feels that the easiest way to listen to those groups is to shut the door so it doesn't have to hear them.

The problem you have is that you suffer. You should suffer, and rightly so, because what you are doing is cutting out the reason for which we are here. You are cutting out the reason for which we have committee hearings. You are cutting out the reason that people should be part of any legislative process, and that is to voice their concerns, to voice their opinions, to share their expertise so that any piece of legislation becomes either a better piece of legislation or, by listening to the people of the province, something that should never be passed into law.

You don't want to hear that. You don't want to hear comments that can improve legislation. You don't want to hear comments from individuals who are opposed to the legislation. You want to carry on in terms of a shell of existence. You want to put over you a cone of silence, and for that, the legislative process is very much weakened.

I can tell you that many people are not going to forget how you have used this type of weapon. They are not going to forget how you have shut the door on their being part of the legislative process. They are not going to forget that you have, in an arrogant, self-centred way, ordained what should and should not be, to the exclusion of the people in this province, the people we have been elected to serve.

For that, I stand opposed to this particular motion. I stand opposed in principle. I stand opposed to the fact that it is just one of a number of motions of time allocation which do nothing less than say to the people of this province, "We don't want to hear you."

This government is wrong. It is wrong in its policies; it is wrong in the process in which it drives its policies through this Legislature. And for that, I hope that all members of this Legislature, including members on the government side -- because you are shutting the door on your own constituents -- will stand up once in the life of this Legislature and say no to the motion of your House leader: "No, it is wrong to exclude my constituents. It is wrong to exclude anyone's constituents who want to be part of the legislative process."

I only hope that the members, not only in the opposition but also in the government, will say that motions to exclude people from legislative processes are wrong, motions that exclude people from being part of any hearing are wrong. This motion is wrong, and we will vote against it.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm standing here to oppose this motion to close off opportunity for the members of the committee to hear all of the information that I think is very important in dealing with a very important piece of legislation, Bill 100.

Everybody knows that Bill 100 is

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act. The Regulated Health Professions Act has been discussed in some form or another, or at least the need for it has been discussed, in our communities across this province for probably as long as eight or nine years. It's taken a very long time to come to a conclusion with regard to those discussions and with regard to the wording so that all parties could agree, as far as possible, to the final solutions contained in that piece of legislation. I think the success in the end was because we did indeed take the time to do it right.

This closure motion this afternoon does not allow us to take the time to do the amendment correctly and with the kind of input that's necessary to make it an amendment that we can all support, that we can all be proud of: one that is extremely, I think, controversial but necessary.

In the last few days, we have in fact received from the government -- I'm now talking about all members of the committee -- the consolidated report, Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, commonly referred to as the RHPA Bill 100, and proposed government amendments.

Mr Speaker, you yourself I know have sat on committees of this Legislative Assembly in the past. It's one of the processes down here that I've not always been proud to participate in. On some occasions I have, but in the majority of cases I think we've looked at legislation in a manner that we wouldn't look at any other rules in society. That is, we get a piece of legislation. We look at it for a few days. The government of the day gets dug in. We ask the witnesses to travel from all parts of the province: regular, everyday citizens, professionals, sometimes interest groups and others. Often we don't listen.

More frequently, we don't do our homework, which I've accused members of this Legislative Assembly of before. But I think the underlying point that I'm trying to make is, we need the time.

We received these amendments at the beginning of this month. It's been very difficult to get them out to individuals: not as difficult to some of the professional groups, but certainly to individuals, and as everyone knows, we're trying to meet the needs not only of the professionals in the medical community today but of the patients, who have often referred to themselves as victims in corresponding with those of us who represent them. I think under those circumstances it's even more important that we take the time to do it right.

Mr Speaker, if you could just take a look at what we're having to deal with here: absolute pages of amendments. When we get up to page 6,

section 43,

part I, there are whole columns of amendments on that one section. We take a look at a very controversial one where there is disagreement with regard to clause 1(3)c, where the Ministry of Health proposes to strike out this provision and substitute a new provision. This is the tentative wording, whatever that means; this would be the amendment, the one with regard to "behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient that are demeaning, seductive or exploitive".

Section 1(4): MOH proposes to delete this provision, which is one we've talked about before, and then, with regard to

section 4 of clause 1, no further amendment proposed at this time. This is all new. It's taken a lot of time to discuss the implications of every word in committee so far.

It's my understanding that we've had one day of public hearings where in fact the professionals have had an opportunity for input. We're now closing debate on this motion with just a few hours left, and this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that this government's going to have to deal with.

My recommendation to the government would be this: If in fact they do want to come out with some important legislation before the break at Christmastime, whether the House will prorogue or otherwise, why don't they just come out with the Regulated Health Professions Act, bring it to the House for approval and then in the break take a look in a very careful way and listen to all of the possible input we can get with regard to these pages of amendments.

In fact, they haven't even been written up in the normal form that you would look at legislation in this regard. Just pages in a loose-leaf binder: that's all I've been able to get. If somebody has something different, I wouldn't mind having it. But at this point in time, if there is one I'd like it. But at this point in time, the best that we've been able to get are pages of amendments.

What does this really mean? I guess I could speak on behalf of anyone who has written. This letter is on November 22 to all concerned MPPs and staff, Queen's Park, from Sylvia Catherine Bradley, Out of Patients Advocacy Network in Toronto, regarding public hearings on Bill 100, and I read and quote:

"The standing committee on social development has allowed only three days of public hearings on Bill 100." This is before the closure motion. "We understand the importance of having this bill reviewed and returned to the House for third reading quickly. It would be preferable that it be passed so that Bill 43 can be amended to adequately address the issue of sexual abuse by health professionals before Bill 43 is proclaimed into law at year's end.

"However, once again, victims are being victimized by the system that is supposed to protect them". The very thing that we're trying to do in our committee, in fact, is to protect victims, and this particular individual who represents the Out of Patients Advocacy Network, is saying that we're victimizing them by allowing just three days of public hearings.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I don't know why we have to be interrupted when we're trying to make a statement or reading from a simple letter that somebody wrote to us. But I would appreciate it if in fact I could get on the record on behalf of the people who have let us know that they want their voices heard.

"Once again, victims are being victimized by the system that is supposed to protect them. The first day of hearings," tomorrow, "is entirely given over to professionals and their advocates. Only a very few of the advocates for victims have been assigned any time on the last two days of the scheduled hearings, and we are told that there is no time left."

These are the feelings of so many citizens across this province. It's not a matter of having three more days; it's a matter of not having perhaps as many as six more days, and having them at a time when families can be here, not late into the evening when it doesn't matter, but during the day with some time's notice, perhaps a week or two's notice.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You refused to hear it. It's easier for women to get out in the evening.

Mrs Cunningham: The member for Durham-York is saying it's easier for women to get out in the evening. That's not the point. The point is that there are more than 50 letters from people who want to talk about being victims, and it's extremely important that we have scheduled the amount of time necessary. I sat on this committee just a week ago and I knew that this week there would be two days, and I knew that the two days this week and next week would not be enough, given the briefs and the letters that I received as an individual member.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: Members of the government -- not all of them, but a committee member of the government is saying that we refused to sit late. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this being an untimely way to complete hearings, whether we sit late or otherwise, on a piece of legislation that should be bending over backwards to get input from victims and others who are interested in helping us in a very sensitive area in the administration of health care in our province.

I really do commend the government with regard to the processes that they've used with the regulated health care legislation, the Regulated Health Professions Act. But it took a long time, and the reason that we're all there supporting it is because, to the best of all of our abilities, with a lot of agreement sometimes to agree to disagree, we got behind it and supported it because it was the best we could do collectively.

Pushing citizens around like this is not going to get the support of the citizens of Ontario, and I really object to a closure motion on such a sensitive piece of legislation that affects, at least according to the witnesses and according to the authors of this report, the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients.

In fact, I have to say thank you very much to Marilou McPhedran, the chairperson; Harvey Armstrong; Rachel Edney; Pat Marshall; Roz Roach; and Briar Long, coordinator, for the work they did in, I think, very difficult circumstances to help us in making recommendations in this regard.

They talk about their mandate and they talk about making the recommendations work. They talk about their list of recommendations. They talk about what happens next.

I have to say that two days for this legislation, given the kind of input we've been able to receive with regard to all kinds of information that would be helpful to this government, is simply not enough.

As I take a look at the report of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Regulated Healthcare Associations on Bill 100, Submission to the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Social Development, I have to say that in the introduction it says, "Several of the associations who are members of the coalition also intend to appear before the committee to present their respective views on issues or concerns other than those raised in this submission." That is a very important statement. The expectation of the Ad Hoc Coalition of Regulated Healthcare Associations on Bill 100, which put this report together, is that other associations would indeed have the opportunity to appear before the committee.

It's extremely important, if we're going to have consensus, that we be able to question witnesses, ask what their intent is and actually get updates from the individual groups and individuals with regard to the more recent amendments we're looking at.

When they talked about the objectives with regard to Bill 100, they talked about a number of amendments. "In order to be effective, they stated that Bill 100 must be and be seen to be reasonable, fair, balanced, comprehensive and not unduly intrusive." How can we be seen to be reasonable, fair and balanced if we don't take the time to listen to people?

I really wish this government had had more effect on changing the system of committees down here. In fact, they might do that in the next year. They've certainly heard many of us complaining about it. We shouldn't be rushing through important, ground-breaking legislation that has been needed for such a long period of time without having the support and confidence of the public that we represent, not only of medical groups but of patients and victims. They have a right to tell their story. We as elected officials should be thanking them for wanting to address our committee.

It says another objective of Bill 100 is "deterring sexually abusive behaviour by health care practitioners." In order to do that, there has been new language recommended for the one controversial section, which I've lost, but others who are more knowledgeable than myself will remember it. Let me see if I can find it quickly. I can't find it quickly. It's hard to find things quickly when you've only looked at them for a few minutes, so I'll just leave it for the moment.

Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Once again, I believe that with such important debate on the matter of sexual abuse, the government should ensure that this House has a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for London North may resume her participation.

Mrs Cunningham: I was actually referring to

section 3, the definition of sexual abuse of a patient and the proposed government amendment as being one that's going to take some time to look at on behalf of both the physicians and the victims of sexual abuse in physicians' offices or other places.

The Ad Hoc Coalition, which we are grateful to, I'm sure would appreciate the opportunity to be part of a process where there's some confidence in the government with regard to not asking people to come down here a couple of weeks before Christmas and into the evening. It's not a matter of my availability or my caucus members' availability.

I think that the Health critic, Jim Wilson, who has been following this on behalf of all of us very carefully, will be speaking later this afternoon. He can probably say it much more succinctly than I myself with regard to the accusations by government members; I haven't heard them myself. But I have this afternoon heard the member for Durham-York, where he accuses us of not being available in the evenings. That's not the fact.

The fact of the matter is that if you really do respect the witnesses, you will give them lead time. You won't ask them to come to this Legislative Assembly next week in the middle of their schedules. I think you will give them a fair bit of lead time. Obviously he's feeling somewhat threatened because he knows that this is not possible, given the closure motion we're dealing with today.

This coalition is in complete agreement with each of these objectives that this legislation is trying to address. They state that:

"We approached our review of Bill 100 and evaluated each part of Bill 100 against the objectives. The recommendations we have made in this submission, after extensive and invaluable consultation with victims and survivors, victims and survivors groups, the regulatory boards, MPPs and government officials, are designed to improve the workability and effectiveness of Bill 100 in achieving these objectives."

Some time during the second week of November, I was able to send this consolidated report out to the health care professionals and victims that had been in touch with my office. We've not heard a lot back from them yet with regard to the proposed new amendment by the government. I certainly would appreciate the time to get advice from my own riding, which I think is a riding that's particularly interested in health care and in the provision of professional health care on behalf of professions that are expected to do such.

I'd like also to talk about the reaction with regard to the bill on behalf of Dr Joan Downe, the president of the London Academy of Medicine. She's "not surprised that so many doctors object to mandatory reporting of potentially abusive gestures or remarks, because their meaning may be misunderstood. As well, it may be more effective for a doctor who encounters a colleague making such remarks to challenge that person, correcting their behaviour, than be forced to report them to the college."

I'd certainly be interested in her recommendations on the new wording, as I would be in the other list of some 73 individuals who keep us informed with regard to issues in health care in London and Middlesex. We haven't had time to get that, and I think that two nights next week is totally irresponsible, even if we sit after 6 o'clock. It just seems to be a problem for the member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: I have no problem sitting in the evening.

Mrs Cunningham: The problem for the member for Durham-York is that he would like to tell the public that we don't agree to sit. We do agree to sit.

Mr O'Connor: Good. Let's get the House leader in.

Mrs Cunningham: The problem is that we would agree to sit during the break. We're not just going to agree to sit for two nights so that the government members can go home early for Christmas. We would like to work in January and in February and get input from victims and health care professionals themselves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We agree to sit and we'd also like to sit with a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum? Could the table check if indeed there is a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for London North may resume her participation in the debate.

Mrs Cunningham: Because we're talking about quorums etc, I think it's a good time for me to certainly let the public, who may in fact be interested in this motion this afternoon -- another closure bill on behalf of the NDP government, which has probably put forward more closure bills in its session than all other governments in the history of this province combined.

We expect that they perhaps will do more because, you see, what they haven't learned is that in a democracy, such as we're privileged to be part of, people have to learn to give and take. Because you don't always win in committee, that doesn't mean to say that the opposition members who represent the majority views of the public from time to time have to give in to these closure motions and have to give in to the threats of the committee. That's what's happening to us.

Sometimes I've attended committees where very few of the government members have had anything to say representing their individual constituents. They take their marching orders from whomever is the whip of the committee and the others hardly ever have an opinion. I have no idea where the thrust and the force is coming from for closure on this bill. I don't know whether it's coming from the minister, whether it's coming from the Premier or whether they just want a nice little Christmas present, something they think will be received positively by the public of Ontario to prove they've done some work.

I don't know what the thrust is, but I know one thing, and that is that the people who have been abused and who have something to tell us about that abuse and whom we want to talk to us about the new definition ought to be able to be heard. They need some lead time to do that. They shouldn't be rushing to come down here in the evening before Christmas. Their responsibility, which they're prepared to accept, especially those who have young children in school, is be support their families and their children during these times. They want to take

part in the festivities of the holiday season which will be beginning in our schools in full force next week.

The Ontario Physiotherapy Association, in its submission to the standing committee of the Ontario Legislature on social development, said, "We congratulate the provincial government for the introduction of Bill 100, the starting point for dealing with a very difficult issue." The starting point meant to them, in discussing their recommendations for change to the bill, that they had an opportunity to speak at all stages. My view is that "all stages" includes new recommendations as distributed on November 4 in the consolidated report of the Regulated Health Professions Act and proposed government amendments.

I would challenge the government and ask it if in fact it's gotten out to the groups that have already spoken and may have something different to say with regard to the proposed new amendments.

They say, "The commitment of the Ontario government to legislate against sexual abuse in an unbiased, efficient manner is strongly supported by the members of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association." I wonder if they would consider a closure motion before their colleagues and before patients have been heard unbiased and efficient? I doubt it.

"Bill 100 raises serious concerns for those practising in our profession. We unquestionably support the principles addressed in this bill." That's great; we should be proud of it. "However, we fear the potential implications on the caring and physical components of our practices if this bill remains unaltered." They have not had an opportunity to take a look at the new amendments.

How about the Ontario Psychological Association, another group that I deal with, a group that's very active actually in London, Ontario? They feel very strongly that the committee should take the time to listen to all witnesses. It would be the nature of their work that people listen and that people have an opportunity to be part of the democratic process. That is not happening with this closure motion that's before us today.

Bill 100 is

an act to amend the RHPA, as we know. "To members of the social development committee: Given the limited time available to presenters, this submission is being circulated for your information in advance of today's hearings. We look forward to discussing this with you later today." This is from the Coalition of Colleges and Transitional Councils.

I just have to tell you that even given the 15 minutes, many groups were not pleased with the lack of opportunity they had in making their points and answering questions from the members of the committee.

They say that "colleges are responsible for the regulation of health practitioners in the public interest. This duty is fulfilled through such activities as scrutinizing applicants for registration, discipline, quality assurance and assessing fitness to practice." That has been their role. Do you not think that if we have pages of new amendments tabled just last week, the colleges would like to have something to say on the record in committee about this?

We have never, as long as I have been in this Legislative Assembly, which is for more than five years now, had bills presented to the committee and hundreds of amendments tabled weeks and months later. We are going over legislation ad nauseam, rewriting hundreds of new amendments, and regulations from time to time. We just wonder, who is advising the government? Who's doing the work? Who has respect for process?

Then, when they don't get their way, because most of us haven't had the time to consult with the experts and the citizens we represent, they bring forward a closure motion. One wonders some days if we are participating in a democratic process.

Therefore, I have to say in closing my observations on this moti