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

June 3, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

ESTIMATES

MINING INDUSTRY

MINISTRY RELOCATION

WINE AND DINE 93

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

TEN STEPS TO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

LANDFILL

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

LA SALLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

ESTIMATES

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

HEALTH CARE

ECONOMIC POLICY

HEALTH CARDS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

LANDFILL

FIRE SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE

ECONOMIC POLICY

COMMERCIAL FISHING

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

GAMBLING

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

GAMBLING

BICYCLING SAFETY

GAMBLING

BICYCLING SAFETY

GAMBLING

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1005.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 18,

An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Timiskaming will have 10 minutes to open up remarks. Then every official party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes, with the honourable member for Timiskaming having two minutes to wrap up.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Today, I'm very pleased to be able to stand in my place and to really take advantage of a wonderful procedure that we have in the Ontario Legislature that many legislatures right across the world don't have, and that is the opportunity for a legislator in this place to bring up an issue that is important to one of his constituents and, I hope, to many people.

In talking about the bill today, what I want to say is that when you read the bill, it's very simple, and maybe to some it might appear to be inconsequential, but to many it is not inconsequential, because what we're talking about is equality of treatment and we're talking about caring.

The situation that I have found and that has been brought to my attention by a Mr Sampson in Kirkland Lake is that when he was trying to pursue permission from the hospital in which his wife Eleanor finds herself in the chronic ward to install -- the family wanted to buy a gift for Eleanor of a TV, and in this case they wanted a TV combination videocassette recorder so that she could play movies. She ran into a policy at that hospital that many hospitals in Ontario have, and that is that many hospitals have contractual arrangements with companies that basically rent TVs only to their patients.

I am going to show a lot of exceptions to that this morning. There are some excellent hospital policies out there in Ontario, and what I want to do today is to persuade the other hospitals to change those policies.

In fact, Mrs Sampson is unable to supply her own television set, and the rental in a lot of these hospitals and in her hospital in particular is $82 a month. Her family has to pay on her behalf $82 a month for her to have the "privilege" to watch television.

I guess this really begs the question of why this is important, and I just would like to talk about some of her reasons for a moment before I get on to the general subject of this.

First of all, I made the first point that for many people the rental of a television at this exorbitant price, $82 a month, is extremely high. In fact, that would be for most people about 20% of their old age pension. I think that's an exorbitant amount of money to have to pay for the privilege, so-called, of watching television.

The rental units in hospitals are extremely small. In fact, most of them average around a seven-inch screen. Obviously, these are frail people, because they are in chronic wards, and they have difficulty in seeing such a small screen. The rental TVs will not allow a VCR to be attached; they don't have that capacity and most hospitals won't allow that to happen, so that extra enjoyment most of us have the privilege of, to have a movie, is not there for those patients.

Many chronic wards have large televisions established in rooms down the hall. They have, actually, very nice lounges in most chronic wards and other places where chronic patients find themselves, but again, some chronic patients are too frail and don't have the mobility to get down to those rooms. So they need the convenience to be able to have the availability of TV in their own rooms.

I guess it would be really the time to talk about who this affects, because as I'm initiating this proposal on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sampson in Kirkland Lake, there are many people out there today watching who are shut-ins, who find themselves, because of ill health, watching TV a lot. They find themselves in many respects in nursing homes and homes for the aged, in chronic care hospitals and chronic care wards of our acute care hospitals. Those people find themselves in a place that now has become their home.

I think that's the point of all this. Yes, hospitals are institutions and hospitals have to be run as businesses, but hospitals in the chronic care facility in that setting are these people's home. I think they should be allowed the regular accoutrements that we all feel comfortable in having, that we call home. Something basic today in an age of telecommunications and mass media, the ability to have one's own television that one purchases, so that this is not an additional cost to a hospital, I think should be allowed.

I'd like to say that the other reason I'm bringing this up is that, as you know, most hospitals have patient advocates. In this case, the decision was appealed to the patient advocate, and again, this request was overturned. That's why I feel today that I needed to take this another step and try to bring this through as a private member's bill.

When I started to look into this, I thought maybe this was just an isolated matter; I found it wasn't. I had one of my assistants -- as a matter of fact, my legislative intern, John Martelli -- start to do some research on this.

We looked at the chronic care hospitals. There are basically 19 hospitals in Ontario that are absolutely specialized to chronic care. Actually, 15 of those have policies that do allow their chronic care people to have their own television sets, so there's some very good news there, and/or their own VCRs, and I think that's great.

We couldn't call all the hospitals across Ontario, but we started to do a random sample of about 30 of them, and it looks like only about 40% of those do not allow patients to have their own television sets. So there obviously is a recognition out there that this is a need.

What I want to do today basically is to push the point, to try to influence those other hospitals to make this happen for their patients, because I think that's very important. What this really strikes is that there's a tremendous discrepancy out there in the rights and privileges, if you will, of chronic care patients in Ontario, and I think this should be straightened out.

I want to talk about why there might be some reluctance there. I have great sympathy for that. I used to be a chair of a hospital in my riding. I was a chair at a time in the early 1980s when hospitals were given the permission to derive revenue for themselves. In fact, they were really encouraged to derive revenue as much as they could, because hospitals are a business and we have to try to run them more businesslike and we have to make sure they're cost-effective. This is obviously one avenue that hospitals can use to raise revenue. In fact, I'm not against this very thing being applied to acute care patients.

Many of us go to hospital and we're maybe there for a couple of days or maybe a couple of weeks, and maybe it's not that much to ask to pay a rental of $5, $6, $7 or $8 a day, if it's only a few days, to watch television. I can see the hospital getting the revenue from that and especially from having to pay for the service of bringing that in, installing it and taking it out when it's only a short time period. But when somebody's in there for chronic care, I think it's very important that they be allowed to have their own TV set.

Before I conclude my opening remarks, Mr Speaker, I'd certainly like to tell you some of the remarks we've heard from people representing hospitals. These are the people who think what I'm doing today is not a very good idea.

We had one administrator say, "Listen, we're not running an entertainment centre here; we're trying to run a hospital." I'd like to say to that administrator: "Well, no, you're not in the entertainment business. You're in the caring business." I think we forget that sometimes, that if you're running a hospital, you have to do it in a businesslike manner, right, but you are in a caring business, and that's the point I want to make today.

Another hospital administrator said: "We've never had anyone ask us for their own personal TV and we sure don't encourage it. If one gets one, they'll all want it." Well, I'm here today to say as an advocate that I think they all should have them if they want them, especially if people can't afford $82 a month to supply their own television entertainment.

Another employee of another hospital said: "Are you kidding? This place is looking for every penny it can get." Again, I am very sympathetic to that, especially when governments of the day obviously are cutting down on budgetary requirements. What I'm saying to hospitals is, I'm encouraging you to forgo that sort of revenue, from taking that from people who probably are the most susceptible people you serve in your system.

Let me read, before I close on this segment, one of the positive ones. This is from one hospital administrator who said:

"Of course they are allowed the choice to use their own televisions or VCR. As long as the equipment they bring to the rooms is CSA-approved, our policy is that exceptions are made for our chronic care patients. The cable company comes in and hooks up cable if they want it and the bill goes directly to the patient or their families. In fact some of our chronic care patients have their own telephone line, which runs in a similar manner."

So some hospitals understand that a chronic care room is a home for a person, and in some cases this is the last home that a person has. I'm looking for support from all my colleagues to support this bill so that we can make that life, and maybe the end of those lives, as comfortable as possible. I think that's the least we can do for these people.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on second reading of private member's Bill 18,

An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder, that has been brought forward by my colleague from Timiskaming.

If passed, this bill would give chronic care patients the right to install their own television or television and videocassette in their rooms, rather than having to rent this equipment. It would allow the individuals to bring it from home with them.

I want it to be known at the beginning of my remarks that I will be supporting this bill in principle because it deals directly with the quality of life of those patients who deserve comprehensive physical, psychological and spiritual comfort, as well as symptom control and pain management, during the final weeks or months of their lives.

While most chronic care facilities across Ontario do allow the use of personal televisions and VCRs, there's a significant number of hospitals and chronic care wards that do not. Personally, I would like to see hospitals with strict television rental policies make exceptions for chronic care residents in order to make their final home away from home as comfortable as possible rather than have to legislate this policy.

I agree that this clearly is a quality-of-life and economic issue, and I think we all agree that after studying such legislation as Bill 101,

An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care, the government's record isn't very clear. But with Bill 101 we discovered the NDP's willingness to impose user fees on vulnerable adults, people struggling to survive on fixed incomes and others who are trying to live out their final days with dignity and a certain amount of comfort. Bill 101 confirmed the NDP's plan to charge vulnerable seniors more than $300 a month for nursing home care. The government will raise more than $150 million from this user fee. So these people who are paying this extra cost need some breaks, and a break would be for those to be able to take their own VCRs and televisions into their rooms.

So I find it interesting that at the same time as the Health minister is paying for long-term care proposals on the backs of Ontario's frail and elderly by raising nursing home user fees by $150 million, the same government's Municipal Affairs is giving away $150 million worth of housing on the Toronto Islands and driving the private sector out of private day care services to the tune of $100 million.

The government has provided some shabby treatment of Ontario's vulnerable senior citizens who are unable to care for themselves, and since 1990 more than 20 nursing homes in this province have been forced to close their doors. Nursing homes in Orillia, Penetanguishene and Elmvale all have lengthy waiting lists.

So it is unsettling that the government goes to great lengths and expense to designate, proclaim and promote one month out of the year in recognition of our senior citizens. It is unsettling because the same government continues with its discriminatory policy that requires senior citizens over the age of 70 to undergo automatic driver's licence testing in the event of an accident. Regardless of the circumstances, the government wants to penalize senior citizens over the age of 70 even if they didn't cause the accident, and that's unfair.

The seniors in this province, the increased costs that they're having with regard to court action, real estate and mortgage transactions and the extra costs the government has put on their wills and estates, family law, this is the same government that is penalizing seniors in a government ripoff that will see the nursing home fees increased by $300 a month. That's why we need some type of legislation like we have this morning to give those people in the chronic care role a break. The people currently using chronic care facilities and those likely to need this type of service in the future need that break.

Facilities that currently provide chronic care include freestanding public chronic hospitals, chronic care units in acute care hospitals and freestanding private chronic hospitals. The steering committee determined that there are approximately 11,500 beds in Ontario designated for chronic care, and of these, 11,080 were staffed and in operation in 1991 and 1992. These beds are used for long-term stay care programs and shorter-stay assessments, rehabilitation and palliative care programs.

Volume 1 of this study contains 42 interesting recommendations that the government has failed to comment on since volume 1 was released last month. We don't know where this government stands on this very important issue.

Recommendation 4 reads: "Chronic hospitals and units should recognize and respect the autonomy of each individual; dignity of each individual; personal, cultural and spiritual interests of each individual; and to the extent possible, should facilitate each patient's participation in, if not direct control over, decisions with respect to his or her residence, activities and care."

I would suspect that allowing patients receiving chronic care to install their own television or combined television and videocassette recorder is a step in the right direction towards recognizing and respecting the autonomy and dignity of each individual. We have the chronic care units in most hospitals on floors where there are people -- some people I know in the city of Orillia, in one room they can look at a ceiling and they don't see trees; they don't see anything. They're in this room and it would certainly be nice for them for them to have their own videocassette, their own television that they could use without worrying about paying an extra cost.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd hoped that we weren't going to get into politics in this debate this morning. I'd hoped that, and then I heard the member for Simcoe East lambasting the government and its seniors' programs. Well, as you can see, I'm grey-haired and I can remember very well when my parents were seniors in England. We didn't have pensions and it wasn't until the Labour government of 1948 that we had health care, and they really suffered. I don't see, really, the seniors of this province suffering to that degree today. So I'm very sorry that the member for Simcoe East decided to interject some sort of political motive to this debate of the member for Timiskaming.

I stand in my place this morning to support the member's bill because I think it is very worthwhile and I think it's very much needed.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Good Liberal bill.

Mr Mills: "Good Liberal bill," he said. Well, it's a good bill. We're not getting into politics.

I can remember some years ago ending up in hospital myself, and I can remember that there was a crucial Blue Jays game on when this happened. I got marched in there and the first thing I said to my wife was, "I'm going to miss the game." She said, "Oh no, no problem, we'll get you a TV rental." So, as the member said, the TVs are like a postcard, you know. You're lying in bed here; the TV's up here. You can just see, sort of, the figures. You can't even read their numbers.

But I ran into a problem right away. They said, "We can't get you that TV installed, Mr Mills, until next week." So I said, "Holy smoke, I'm going to miss the game." But I said, "Never mind, I've got a small TV at home." I said to my wife: "Nip home and get it. Bring it up. We'll put it on the table."

They said: "Hold it. You can't do that." I said: "What do you mean? I'm a paying patient in this hospital. You're getting paid. Surely I've got a right to put the TV on the table." They said: "Oh no, you can't do that here because we've got a contract with some fellow who installs the TVs and takes them out and he doesn't come in until a week's time and that's when you'll get it." So I have a lot of empathy with even the people who happen, unfortunately, to end up in hospital for operations or whatever, for treatment.

Now, when we get to the chronic care patients, this is serious, because I've taken it upon myself to visit a number of chronic care residences in my own riding and I do feel rather sad when I see the lack of facilities, TV, that these folks can see because of some obligation that they have to rent from a particular company. Let's face it, most of those people who end up in chronic care are not rich; they have very limited funds.

The member has provided some idea of the funds required to rent a TV and I think this is pretty general. When you look to $82 a month to rent a TV, $984 a year to rent a TV that in most cases I think is about a nine-inch screen and is perched up on a long arm at the window. The type of viewing you can do is very limited. They can't even see what goes on here. They can't keep abreast of the parliamentary channel because it doesn't provide for that,

whereas if you got your own TV and your own cable you can do that. I can see that this is a very, very big feature in the quality of life that people have in chronic care hospitals where they really depend on their TVs for all the enjoyment they get.

Also, I'd like to understand the opportunity of a VCR, because we all have our favourite movies and I must have seen that movie Chariots of Fire 20 times. I think that's the most inspiring movie I've ever seen and I can think of nothing better than if I was lying in a chronic care ward to give me some lift in life that I would like to be able to see Chariots of Fire again and again and again. I know I'm a bit square and it's not probably the viewing that goes on today, but that was an inspiring movie that would really help people who are under some sort of stress, I would think.

I think there might be a few problems. Every bill has got some sort of problem. I can see people dragging in TVs that they've had for 20 years, where the plug is hanging on a wire or with a piece of tape. I've seen that and sometimes I was guilty of that myself, but not any more since I nearly got electrocuted once.

But I think we could build into this some sort of inspection program whereby you bring your TV in and there's a local electrician there who can check this out to make sure that it's safe and those little things that we need to make sure that no one gets electrocuted or that it doesn't cause any fires. I think that's a minor step to carry out.

Another one of our members wishes to speak to this bill. He's not here at the moment. I hope he is, because if he isn't here and I've stopped speaking, we've lost some of our time.

Interjection: Rotation.

Mr Mills: Yes, but eventually he's going to come up.

I just want to say that I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this forward. It addresses the real concerns of people in chronic care. It addresses the concerns of their relatives who want to provide a television, as the member rightly said, that they can see with some degree of clarity. I know that I have a problem looking at little TVs. It's rather like watching the Blue Jays from up there near the roof, you know. You see people running around, you never see the ball and then people cheer so you know they must have done something good, but you can't really see it.

Mr Ramsay: You should get better seats.

Mr Mills: I understand that. But this speaks to a real need, a real concern. The member started off his speech this morning and he said, "Some of you may think this is inconsequential." I don't believe it is. I believe that it's needed and it reaches to the heart of concern and care that we should have quality of life for those citizens of ours who are less fortunate than us. I commend the member and, when the time comes, I will be supporting it. I thank you for this time, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to speak in support of Mr Ramsay's bill, which would permit patients in chronic care facilities to install their own television or a television-VCR while they're resident in the place.

I think we all know that those people who are in chronic care facilities are there not of their own choice in most cases; they're there for the longer term and they're there because they need to be for health reasons. When we were discussing Bill 101, the long-term care bill, it became very clear from advocacy centres, from consumers themselves, that there was an important aspect to people's stay in longer-term facilities in reflecting the need to recognize the dignity and the individual choice of the person who is resident in that facility.

We feel that this bill indeed is timely, because right now the manual and the regulations under Bill 101, the long-term care bill, are being developed and written. I think this bill underlines that, as we approach patients' rights or a method of respecting the dignity of patients, we should ensure, through some mechanism, the elimination of arbitrary rules that are placed by administrators of places and we should also ensure that there is a discussion of what facilities and what enhancements are in fact useful to the patient.

One of the things we should recognize -- and I've spoken about the chronicity of people who are in chronic care facilities -- is that frequently the recreational or entertainment vehicles that are available to them assist them in improving their health status. That has been underlined to a great extent by the advocacy groups and indeed by providers themselves.

I'm leafing through papers here, because I wanted to particularly raise a point which was contained in a letter from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly to Mr Ramsay, and I happen to have a copy of that. The advocacy centre indicates that it has been a strong supporter of the inclusion of a patients' bill of rights in any legislation dealing with long-term care. They go on to say:

"Although in some cases difficult to enforce, the patients' bill of rights is important as a statement of both rights and courtesies that should be afforded to patients and residents in an institutional setting. These rights and courtesies are important to the quality of life of these residents."

I believe that is a very fine

summary of one of the reasons that I'm supporting this bill.

I think as we look at the nursing home situation and chronic care, although this bill relates to people who are receiving chronic care, we know that chronic care recipients will be not only in chronic care hospitals but will also be in nursing homes and in homes for the aged as the long-term care program proceeds. But I think we have to be very cautious in that in the long-term care program, enormous expectations have been raised for residents and potential residents with respect to what can be made available and what will automatically be made available to them.

Certainly, we had to fight in committee on Bill 101 to ensure that a patients' bill of rights was included in that bill. Ultimately, the government agreed that the patients' bill of rights, which was previously in the Nursing Homes Act alone, would apply to all long-term care facilities.

There are other expectations that have been raised, not only about where the resident can find a place to live but about the cultural surround of the residence, about the religious services which are provided in a residence or in an institution. But even more so, there is a singular expectation raised about the care plans available to people, whether they're health and personal care, whether they're rehabilitative or whether they're recreational. I want to once again underline that while the government is demanding that care plans be put forward for patients, it has not guaranteed that it will pay for those care plans.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure and underline that one small aspect of courtesy and convenience for patients is ensured. I hope, if this bill does not proceed in the form it's now in through second and third reading and ultimately adoption, the concept will indeed be included as the regulations and the manual for long-term care facilities are further developed.

In closing, I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member from Timiskaming. I know that his office and he himself have done a lot of work in preparation for this bill. They've underlined the need for safety and maintenance standards, and I think that's a useful reminder to us all. They've underlined the fact that the courtesy of operation of one patient versus another in a ward or semi-private situation should be honoured.

They've underlined that certain costs would accrue to the patient, the cost for the television but also perhaps the cost for cable, but those are issues which I think on a facility-by-facility basis can be readily handled. Along with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and many others, I congratulate my colleague.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I wasn't actually scheduled to speak to this, but there are a couple of points that I'd like to make, if I could just get a drink of water.

The issue seems to be rather interesting, that we're at this stage debating this particular piece of work by the member from Timiskaming. It seems to me to be a commonsense kind of issue. It's hard to believe, "Can I bring in a TV to a chronic care facility, a hospital, because I can't afford the hook-up costs.

I'm here not of my own free will, I'm here because I have to be" -- maybe not "own free will" -- but "I'm here because I have to be, and spending a great deal of time and having very little entertainment value obviously," that it gets to this state, that we're debating in the Legislature of the province of Ontario whether or not someone can bring a TV in for their own entertainment purposes. I will be supporting this bill. It seems to make sense to me. It's something that I would have no trouble supporting.

There obviously is a downside from the care giver point of view or the facility or the structure. Clearly they have a contract and there is going to be lost revenue. Clearly with that contract there are some kinds of exclusivity that they offer in return for a cut of the cost. So there will be a downside from a financial point of view for the facility offering the care. Ideally that means that if that revenue doesn't come from the rental of televisions, it will obviously have to come from either the patients themselves or the government commitment to the expenditure.

I can understand the fact that it's going to cost money but I think in the whole scheme of things, when you analyse that someone is in there, they simply can't afford -- and the member from Durham suggests that they can't afford or they can't even see those kind of postage-stamp TVs. Any reasonable person, I think, subject to some inspection to make sure they're workable and they're safe, would agree that it doesn't seem to be a very unreasonable request. I think the administrators in these facilities would give enough thought to the request that they would simply approve it without getting into this place. Clearly, and the member brings up a couple of examples, this is just not the case.

So we're here today debating whether or not someone can bring in a TV to watch while they're in a chronic care hospital etc. Sometimes this place is kind of hard to believe and this is one of the times. Surely there must be something better we can do and surely the people we pay to run these facilities -- we pay them enough that they can have enough common sense that they could make what I would think is a fairly rational and reasonable decision. So I applaud the member, I'll support it and I look forward to further comments by other members.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): While I haven't had the opportunity to sit in the Legislature over the last few minutes because of committee work, I do understand the importance of this issue and I can just imagine and guess at what the arguments are for this bill because I personally agree with the bill. I think that the member needs to be applauded for bringing such an item to the House.

I wish to just talk a little bit about why I agree with the bill. My strongest argument, I think, in approving this would be the cost factor to chronic patients who are either elderly or on some sort of a fixed income. I know that the price of the television sets and the rental of some of the VCRs in hospitals can add up to a lot of money at the end of the year.

If you look at one of the arguments -- and I read this in the package earlier -- that the author of the bill had used in the package, one of the patients was paying up to $1,000 a year for a television set in the hospital. A thousand dollars a year for somebody who's on a fixed income is a lot of money and I can't see why it's taken so long, frankly, for somebody to actually raise this issue. I'm not sure, I haven't had a chance to read in Hansard whether somebody has done that in the past, but I can't understand why this hasn't been brought up before.

Televisions are just one item that are very expensive if somebody were to take a television out with their stay in the hospitals. It doesn't include the barber and the beauty shops. It doesn't include prices like $7 per haircut and $3 for a wash and, of course, hairstyles are even more, $11 a shot for somebody who wants to look and feel a little better with their stay in the hospital. You get into conditioners as well, from what I could read here, at $2.75 to condition your hair and rinse your hair. If you want your hair rinsed, it's $2.75.

These are costs that would be above and beyond the television sets and maybe we should do something about these costs as well at a later date. Maybe somebody else could introduce another bill that might introduce us to the problem when it comes to haircuts in hospitals as well.

I'm not sure whether anybody has had the chance to stay in a hospital even for a week, let alone a year, let alone six months, but when you lie in that bed -- and I've had the experience -- lying in that bed for a week, you want to get out of that bed. You want to get out and get washed up and you want to get out and cut your hair and you want to feel good.

While you're in that bed, you want to watch a little bit of television, you want to be able to pass the time in a way that would mean a little more comfort for a lot, and it's not as comfortable when you know you have to pay the $1,000 a year to rent a television set, and that's a low figure from what I can gather.

The member, I think, mentioned as well that 50% of the hospitals with a chronic care ward in Ontario are charging, and I think that's a shame. I think this bill is needed. I think it's a bill we need to pass not only here but pass unanimously in here and then perhaps get out into the community and talk about other things we could possibly be doing.

Telephones: advance payment of $35 for a telephone. A person on fixed income can't afford this sort of expenditure. A person who's working or is collecting some sort of an insurance package can't afford this sort of cost. So while there isn't anything negative to say about this bill, in my opinion, I would encourage all members to vote in favour of this. Hopefully, we can do that unanimously and, hopefully, our government can take a look at this and expedite this package as quickly as possible.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm delighted to be able to stand in support of the bill being introduced by the member for Timiskaming. The member for Timiskaming is really to be commended for this. I have noticed in my six years in this place that the member for Timiskaming, Mr Ramsay, is constantly bringing issues that are of importance to his constituents and the people of the north and the people of Ontario into this Legislature.

Some may say that Bill 18 isn't an important bill, that it's not an earth-shattering bill, but it is very important to perhaps a small group of people, a group of people who are quite vulnerable. It's

an act that would allow patients receiving chronic care to install their own television or combined television and videocassette recorder.

As the member for Timiskaming has quite well pointed out, when he surveyed the chronic care hospitals, out of 19, 15 of them were already allowing patients to do this. However, in a random sample of some 22 Ontario hospitals that had chronic care units in fact the numbers were much lower.

The question I have for this Legislature today is, if 75% of the chronic care hospitals in this province are already allowing chronic care patients to have their own television and VCR units, then the issue of safety is a camouflage, because obviously these hospitals would not permit something that was not safe. As the member's bill quite validly points out, there's a requirement that these units would meet the relevant Canadian safety association standards, or any safety standards established by the authority responsible for the place where the person is receiving care.

It's very clear that the member for Timiskaming has brought forward a bill which is quite well thought out and which will meet the needs of chronic care patients in this regard.

There is a wide range of support for this bill. I'd like to quote from a letter from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. I believe the member for Halton, the Liberal health care critic, Barbara Sullivan, has already referred to a portion of the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly's letter, but I would like to read from another section. They say:

"Dear Mr Ramsay:

"I am certainly in support of your private member's bill which would have the effect of permitting all chronic care patients in residence in Ontario the choice to use their own television or television/VCR. I congratulate you on your sensitivity to quality-of-life concerns of chronic care residents.

"It never ceases to surprise me the way a certain proportion of the institutional sector dehumanizes the patients and residents living in those institutions. Access to street clothing, the right to personalized rooms with mementoes and personal items, the access to personal televisions and VCRs, the right to have privacy to the degree possible within a hospital setting are all simple pleasures that in some cases are denied persons who live in chronic care hospitals as well as nursing homes and homes for the aged. It is a sad comment that you have to go so far as to try to get through a private member's bill to ensure these types of courtesies are afforded to chronic care patients."

One of the comments I would particularly like to highlight is that these hospitals are, for many chronic care patients, their homes. It is a very dehumanizing situation when they are in a hospital setting without their personal mementoes and things around them.

This is very important. It's important for an economic reason, where many chronic care patients would not be able to afford the prohibitive costs associated, and it's important for quality-of-life reasons. I would think that members of this Legislature would want to support all the Mrs Sampsons of Ontario who cannot afford to put so much of their pension dollars into renting a television, a very small television at that.

I commend the member from Timiskaming for his sensitivity on this issue and for very much caring about the people of his riding and the people of this province, in trying to make the lives of chronic care patients a little better in this province. I hope all members of this Legislature will give his bill their full support.

Mr Ramsay: I wish to take up the remaining time of our caucus and then proceed into my concluding two minutes, if that's permissible.

I guess, Mr Speaker, as you were asking me at the beginning, I'd like to formally move second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder.

I'd like to, first of all, thank very much all the speakers who spoke in favour of this bill this morning. I'm very pleased to have that support and look forward to having this bill approved.

I'd like to just mention a few of the other quotes of how some of the other administrators in Ontario feel about this. Here's a quote from a Toronto hospital. It says:

"We make every effort to turn chronic care rooms into homes, and that would include TVs and VCRs if requested, and even personal furniture and wall hangings, but with some minor restrictions with respect to size and safety."

Another one up in Thunder Bay:

"Yes, we make exceptions, for our chronic care patients only. Usually the family will purchase the patient a TV or a VCR as long as it's safe and they pay for the hookup and cable. For most, their rooms are their permanent residences and must be treated as such."

One might ask also, "Why VCRs?" In many cases, this is the only contact that chronic care people have with their grandchildren, that now with the advent of home videos, they get an opportunity to share in those family occasions where they can't be present in the home for those occasions. So I think that's very important if the family is able to supply that.

Another hospital says:

"Our three-year contract with the TV rental company expires this year, at which time we will change our policy. Chronic care patients will then be allowed to bring in their own equipment. We have discussed the matter and feel that it is a quality-of-life issue. It really is ludicrous that some of our chronic care patients must pay a significant portion of their income to rent a small-screen television."

Another quote from a Toronto hospital:

"The people on our chronic care floors are not considered patients. Rather, they are residents who have made their hospital room their personal home, and thus we allow TVs and VCRs as long as they are deemed to be safe by our maintenance staff. A safety log is kept on equipment, and if the resident shares a room, we request that they use earphones."

Again, it looks like the application of common sense has won out in many Ontario hospitals for sure.

I'd like to conclude to say that I think this is a reasonable request and that I understand that hospitals are in financial crisis, but I think the revenue loss from only one component of their patients, the chronic care patients, would not be undue to bear. I certainly would encourage this to happen.

I think we have to ensure, as I've mentioned, that safety and privacy matters are dealt with, and I think these can be worked out by the various hospitals. In fact, we can see that a lot of Ontario hospitals already have this type of policy in place, and so my point here today is to encourage that.

Mr Speaker, I believe I would --

Interjection.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, thank you; I have my other two minutes. Thank you.

I have been in contact with the Ontario Hospital Association. They want to meet with me, and they have certainly pointed out to me that many hospitals in Ontario have very good policies. What I certainly will be encouraging other hospitals to do, and certainly the OHA to do, is to basically put those hospitals that don't have this policy in contact with some of the great hospitals in Ontario that do have these policies: St Joseph's in Guelph, West Park in Toronto, McKellar Hospital in Thunder Bay. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, as the member my colleague from Burlington South has informed me, has a very clear and humane policy regarding the use of personal TVs.

Clearly this is, as many members have said, a quality-of-life issue, and certainly the discrepancy in the policy across the province I think has to end.

In conclusion, I guess I have to thank the people who first brought this to my attention, and that is Mr and Mrs Sampson in Kirkland Lake. I know and am sure that both are watching today. Mr Thomas Sampson is watching in his home on his own personal television and, unfortunately, Mrs Eleanor Sampson is having to watch on a very small screen. So, Eleanor, I hope you can see me but I know I appear very small on your screen this morning and I know you're paying $82 a month for the privilege of watching not only your parliamentary channels but also other shows that you enjoy.

I hope that this exercise this morning, which I really feel is going to be supported by all members of the House, will have some effect not only on the hospital that you find yourself in, but for the other people who are watching, I hope that if they don't have that opportunity, their hospitals also will, when they have that opportunity, change their mind and re-examine this policy and make sure that their chronic care people are treated with the dignity and respect that I know they deserve and are given the attention and care of residents and people who are really in their homes and not in an institution.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotment for ballot item number 11, second reading of Bill 18, Mr Ramsay's private member's motion.

Would the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville please move his private member's bill.

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

Mr Runciman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords / Loi visant à protéger la personne, les biens et les droits des locataires et des locateurs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the honourable member. The member for Leeds-Grenville will now have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which all recognized parties in the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate. Then the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville will have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This legislation was brought in primarily because of concerns I've been hearing as the Conservative Party's critic for the Minister of the Solicitor General in dealing with policing and law and order, community safety and justice issues.

It came to my attention some time ago about a significant problem, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto but also spreading into other areas of the province, primarily in public housing units, subsidized to a significant extent by the taxpayers of this province. I was informed, for instance, that there are approximately 400 crack dealers operating out of public housing in Metro Toronto alone. This is a significant problem. That figure has been confirmed by Metropolitan Toronto Police authorities.

It's a significant problem in not only the fact that these drug dealers are being subsidized by all of us as taxpayers in this province with very scarce tax dollars; at the same time we have people in real need of social assistance and social housing who are on long waiting lists and cannot obtain accommodation while we have people who are going after the children of this province, especially minority children, getting them involved in drugs, and we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing their accommodation.

It's virtually impossible in many instances to evict these individuals, a very difficult process, and what this legislation attempts to do is try and streamline that and make it significantly easier to evict this type of individual from apartment accommodation. As I said, my primary concern is with public housing.

Given the serious and insidious nature of the problem that this bill is trying to address, namely, the use of illegal drugs in apartments, particularly public housing units, I feel that all members of this Legislature, and indeed all Ontarians, will support this bill.

The only difficulties I've had in terms of reaction to this legislation up to this point have been from an organization representing lawyers who tend to represent some landlords, I gather, in terms of trying to evict these individuals. Because this bill will bypass that process so that a crown can initiate the proceedings for eviction following a conviction on a drug charge, it takes the lawyers out of the loop, who apparently do reasonably well, some of them in any event, in terms of representing landlords in trying to arrange evictions. That's the only group I've heard an objection from in respect to this legislation. Hopefully we won't be hearing other objections later on.

I guess we can perhaps quibble about some of the details in this legislation, but second reading is essentially dealing with the principle of legislation, and I would hope that no members of this Legislature would have difficulty with the concept, the principle, of trying to get rid of drug dealers, crack dealers, operating out of public housing in this province and jeopardizing all of us, especially the children.

Currently, it takes approximately a year to a year and a half to evict drug dealers from apartments in this province. There's nothing in the Landlord and Tenant Act specifically that mentions illegal drugs or their use or sale as grounds for an eviction. If a landlord wants an eviction, he/she/they must find other reasons for trying to remove a troublesome tenant.

In the year or year and a half that it takes to get rid of a drug seller, at least hundreds of young people will have purchased drugs and many tenants will have been intimidated and have lived in terror in many of those situations in public housing areas.

There's an old expression about a person's home being their castle. No neighbour has the right to make life a living hell for the neighbours by operating a crack house or a drug chemical lab out of their apartment, and no neighbour has the right to bring desperate and strung-out people into a residential area, people who frighten children and often commit violent crimes because of their drug habit. No one has the right to force innocent tenants to hide inside their apartments. That, in effect, is what's happening in many areas.

I ask the members to just think about it for a moment. How would you like to live in an apartment where you weren't sure if or when you could go outside or you're scared to let your children play, where your entire life, out of no fault of your own, has to be rearranged in order to avoid drug dealers and drug purchasers?

Most of us at some point have had to live in an unpleasant area in order to work or because we simply couldn't afford something better. That's certainly true for the vast majority of residents of public housing. Children -- I want to make emphasis in respect to children -- growing up in poverty have enough problems without being given crash courses on drug pushing, robbery and murder by the time they are 10 years old.

People now are forced to live, in many instances, in an environment with monthly shootings and stabbings, daily fights and disputes, needles outside their door and prostitutes harassing them. We have to wake up and realize that the drug problem is the single most serious crisis facing our province. It's a crisis which is tied to so many other social problems: crime, AIDS, health care, incarceration costs, policing, unemployment insurance, welfare.

Politicians -- and we in this assembly can begin this today -- have to send a clear and singular message to tenants, landlords, drug sellers and police as to whose side we are on. As I said earlier, this bill will streamline the eviction process for drug sellers who use their apartment as a base to distribute drugs. A prosecutor could apply for immediate eviction upon sentencing, provided the suspect and his solicitor had been notified in advance. Landlords can apply for an order of eviction after sentencing if 30 days' notice is given.

There is still opportunity for due process here. A convicted person can appeal the eviction order and indicate during the appeal trial why they should not be evicted. There are a variety of reasons that a judge may be persuaded -- for example, they may be in some sort of rehabilitation program -- those kinds of things which could be considered by the court in respect to perhaps rescinding the eviction order.

This new

section of the Landlord and Tenant Act will specifically mention drug selling as a reason for eviction and will speed up the process by allowing immediate application. I want to dispel -- in case we're going to hear some of this later on -- some myths about the bill.

Some people have stated that drug dealers can be kicked out of their apartments before conviction if they're being investigated by the police or complained about by neighbours, and this bill would stop this process. This argument is factually incorrect. No drug dealers could be kicked out of their apartment on the basis of hearsay evidence. It's true that some drug dealers are evicted before a conviction in the courts. That's only true if they get snagged on some other offence such as noise violations, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, that sort of thing.

While it's true that those kinds of things certainly do come with crack houses, there are always some drug dealers who will not get nailed on these mitigating crimes and will not be evicted.

The second myth I want to deal with, and dispel hopefully, is that this bill will somehow make it harder to kick people out of apartments for other offences, that it will somehow raise the level of crime necessary to get evicted, and this too is false. People can still be kicked out for the other types of problems that I mentioned earlier. This bill will not in any way preclude a tenant from being evicted for other types of indiscretions.

The third myth I will have to deal with later on, but hopefully we're going to have support from all members of the Legislature as we proceed through this debate.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I, today, will be speaking in opposition to Bill 20, not because I think it's unimportant to control the importation and distribution of narcotics and drugs. Quite frankly, having served on the government anti-drug task force, I'm well aware, through our travels across the province and through hearing hundreds of presentations, of the need for better treatment and control of drugs. But I think that the bill put forward today in the House is draconian. It's almost like using a bulldozer when you could be using a chainsaw. It's flawed, it's redundant and unnecessary.

I would point out to you that

section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act already provides that a landlord can take eviction proceedings if there's an illegal act going on in the rental unit. Unlike cases where there's an interruption of a tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises or there's a case of potential safety violations, where a tenant has seven days to make good the breach of the lease, in the case of an allegation of an illegal act, on 20 days' notice a landlord can bring that matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and seek a termination order and a writ of possession.

Not only does a landlord have to wait, as would be the case with Bill 20, for a criminal conviction, a landlord, upon becoming aware of an illegal act, can move well before a criminal conviction for termination of the lease. So in fact Mr Runciman's bill would probably slow the process down.

We've had

part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act since 1978. It provides for

summary proceedings. A landlord has access to these

summary proceedings, as does a tenant. The beauty of

part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act is this: On a case-by-case basis, on the strength of the evidence provided either by the tenant or by the landlord, a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction can arrive at a reasoned decision whether to evict or not.

Mr Runciman's bill, if you read it, would allow a judge, upon registering a conviction in criminal court for a narcotic offence, for some reason -- and this is another flaw -- Mr Runciman in his bill does not even mention the Food and Drugs Act. He only mentions the Narcotic Control Act, while many of our drug-related charges are under the Food and Drugs Act. It's a glaring omission.

But in any event, a judge in a criminal court, upon convicting an accused of a narcotic offence, could actually issue an order, without hearing any evidence from the tenant's family or neighbours or anything like that, terminating a lease, whether or not the landlord is there to make any submissions. The landlord may in fact not want to terminate the lease. That's how far this bill would go.

It doesn't pay any heed to the manner in which many drug dealers exploit vulnerable women and their children who, if a tenancy were terminated, would arbitrarily and summarily be thrown out of their premises. The sad fact of this bill is it doesn't solve the problem of drug dealing. It doesn't deal with any of the socioeconomic circumstances around the drug dealing. What it does is to force that drug dealer and his family, if he has one, to move to another residence. So it becomes yet another landlord's problem.

Any home owner or occupier of a condominium is not subject to such a sanction, nor is anyone who's found guilty of family violence, murder, sexual assault or a host of what society considers equally heinous or more heinous crimes, subject to this kind of sanction.

I would suggest, since time is running short, that we need to evaluate this particular bill on its merits. It has in fact no merits. I agree with the thrust of Mr Runciman's position that we need to deal with drug dealers, but we need to deal with drug dealers in a constructive way that's not going to force them into yet someone else's residence so they become yet another landlord's problem.

The fact of the matter is that we have an avenue available to landlords under the Landlord and Tenant Act:

summary proceeding based on illegal acts. It's an inclusive term. It can even involve breaches of municipal ordinances.

Lastly, since my time is running short, there is a constitutional issue involved. The large majority of drug offences are dealt with in the provincial court (criminal division). The fact of the matter is that in 1978, when the Residential Tenancies Act was first introduced, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada questioning the constitutional right of a Rentalsman to evict tenants and the court held there that only a

section 96 court, a court of competent jurisdiction, can evict a tenant, and all those sections of the Residential Tenancies Act were struck down.

Mr Runciman's bill would call for a provincial court judge to make a decision that superior court judges must make. For that reason alone, I seriously question the thought and reflection Mr Runciman has given to this bill.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'd like to start off my comments by saying that I applaud Mr Runciman's efforts. He's been long-standing and noted for his efforts in this regard. He's certainly approached this question in the past with the same intensity as he is today. I'd like to applaud him for that, because I think all of us in this House would agree that anything in our communities that involves the dealing of drugs and this plague that we have in society -- all of us would agree that we would like to eradicate that.

I know in my own riding the efforts that I have personally made when we were the government. With the anti-drug strategy that we had in place, we had funds available to communities for community-based prevention programs.

One of the things that I'm proudest of in my own community is the fact that in the various Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings, we now have a situation which can be described as a greatly improved one. I was just visiting one of those places this morning and was told by the tenants there that things had improved because new security systems had been put in place.

This is over a long period of time that people in my community have been making efforts at dealing with problems that all of us are concerned with. The abuse of drugs and the kind of trafficking that goes on in our cities across the province, certainly all of us have endeavoured to stem that plague that certainly still exists out there. We're not saying we have been able to resolve the problem. That we have some measure of success is noteworthy, but in fact the war still is going on and it's still a very big problem.

So I would say to Mr Runciman -- the member for Leeds-Grenville -- that it is noteworthy and that it is certainly a worthwhile effort he's making to help to assist in the war against drug dealers and pushers. Obviously all of us would want to assist in that effort.

When I first looked at this piece of legislation, I thought that I could support it and I thought that there would be no reason why it would be a problem. I do support the concept and anything that would be in place to expedite the eviction, anything that would help expedite that process -- I think my cold is getting the better of me this morning, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, anything that would help us to expedite the eviction of drug dealers, who are a plague on our society, certainly would be applauded by anyone in this Legislative Assembly. I can't believe for a moment that that's not the case. So let's just put that aside for a moment.

I think what it really comes down to is, does this bill accomplish that? Does it make it easier in fact to do what all of us would want to have done? I think it's not such an easy question to answer, because it is a complicated matter.

I think part of the bill that is flawed stems from the fact that under Mr Runciman's bill, someone who is convicted under the Narcotic Control Act, it would permit by this legislation someone to go through the appeals process entirely. Even after a conviction has been laid, it would allow that person to continue with an appeal process and therefore prevent an eviction notice from being granted to a landlord at the time that a conviction is held by the courts.

Given that scenario, the appeal process could go on at length. In fact the appeal process could go on and extend past the life of the tenant's lease period. So in theory, you could have a tenant who has been convicted of a criminal offence -- dealing in drug-trafficking -- extend his stay at those premises long past the life of his own lease. That's in theory what could happen by way of Bill 20.

Now, that is rather different from what exists under the Landlord and Tenant Act currently, under

section 107, because

section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act permits, and I would quote from subsection (1) of that:

"Where...a tenant at any time during the term of the tenancy exercises or carries on, or permits to be exercised or carried on, in or upon the residential premises or any part thereof, any illegal act, trade, business, occupation or calling...the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice of termination of the tenancy agreement to be effective not earlier than the twentieth day after the notice is given, specifying the act or acts complained of, and requiring the tenant, within seven days, to pay the landlord the reasonable costs of repairing...."

But it allows the landlord to evict. It allows a method to evict this person without having to wait for an appeal process conducted by the courts, because if a person is convicted under the Narcotic Control Act, Bill 20 would permit them to remain in their premises, theoretically, long after that conviction has been held by the courts, until the appeal process is over.

That, I think, is in subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) reads: "The sentencing court or the Ontario Court (General Division), as the case may be, may order that the tenancy be terminated and that a writ of possession be issued, without further notice." However, subsection (7) says, "An appeal of the order may be made to the Divisional Court."

Again, I repeat, as a result of the appeal, an eviction could not take place. It would be forestalled and therefore the tenant would be permitted to remain in his or her premises until this appeal process has been expired, until all of the appeals have been exhausted.

So I say I would like to hear from Mr Runciman further on that as to how he perceives that. I don't think it's very clear how it would be that this piece of legislation, Bill 20, would expedite the eviction of someone convicted of these offences much more quickly than under

section 107 of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act. That's a real question that I think we have concern with and I don't believe that it's clear. In fact I've had legal opinions now that have been given to us that suggest that is not the case.

We had several firms look at this, and I say to Mr Runciman that at first glance I was prepared to support anything that would expedite this process, and we still are, but on the other hand, I think that this legislation jeopardizes the expediting of that process. If that's not the case, I would like it proven to me before I would support this bill and I'd like to hear further comments from Mr Runciman on that matter.

I say again that in this province we certainly continue to have a problem with drug abuse and with drug trafficking and dealing. It's not something that's gone away. I have had firsthand knowledge of the problems that exist in my community. We have dealt with those, we continue to deal with them and we have a community effort that's under way to make our communities safer and to make them places in which people want to live, but it's not easy and all of us need to recognize that.

I would say to the government members that I'm certainly not impressed by the efforts that this current government is making with respect to that effort. They got rid of the anti-drug secretariat, and that was a great deal of concern for us, because some of the work that was being done in communities -- one community, as an example of this, is my own, where good work was done in very difficult circumstances in parts of the community that were in great jeopardy, having been seized by drug dealers and drug pushers etc.

We now have restored some semblance of community spirit, some semblance of security within those neighbourhoods. That came as a result of the good work that was done through the anti-drug secretariat and the programs that had been established.

We all understand that we're in difficult times. We know there's a call for restraint. Obviously, there's a problem in allocating additional funds. But as I recall, the secretariat's mandate was wound down, I believe, last year, if I'm not mistaken, and it was before this government indicated that it had a deficit problem which was now becoming intolerable to it. All of us had indicated that long before they realized it. But we can't allow drug dealers to run rampant in our communities. We can't allow for the kinds of abuses that we've been seeing. It is a plague on our society. We think this is a priority. We think that obviously efforts have to be made.

I know the legislation that's being brought forward by Mr Runciman does not call for additional expenditures; it is increasing powers, supposedly doing that. Again, I say I applaud Mr Runciman's efforts and I don't question his motives behind this. I sincerely do not.

I would like to hear from Mr Runciman again as to the effectiveness of that

section in his legislation. My concern is with the appeal process, that an eviction notice can be halted by the appeal process in his legislation, so that someone can continue to live in their accommodation as the appeal process is winding down or going through its final conclusions, and until that is exhausted that person remains in his or her premises within that apartment building. That's the concern I have, and I hope he can rectify that as I sit here and listen to the remainder of his remarks, because I would like to support anything that certainly speaks to the concerns people have.

No one wants to see someone who's carrying on criminal activity, particularly drug dealing, continue to live in our communities and have the rights and privileges that all citizens enjoy. Obviously, there is a problem with that. We do not condone any of those actions. I don't believe anyone in this House would see it that way. I think all members would want to have swifter action taken against people who are really a plague to society in any way, shape or form that you can describe.

We all abhor those actions and I think all of us would agree that anything that would help to solve those problems would be a positive thing and something that all of us would support.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today in support of private member's Bill 20,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords. This bill was introduced May 18, 1993, by my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. If passed, Bill 20 would provide a mechanism for the speedy eviction of tenants who have been convicted of certain narcotic offences committed in connection with the rented premises.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation that provides umbrella protection of both tenants and landlords. It does not pit one group against the other that lives within the law; it zeroes in on those tenants who choose to live a lifestyle that would eventually lead to charges and a conviction under the Narcotic Control Act.

I had the opportunity to provide a copy of this bill to a Ms Patti Richardson -- she's the president of the Simcoe County Landlords Association -- for her consideration and her comments. The Simcoe County Landlords Association was established in 1980 and it has 150 members. Ms Richardson says she expects to have more than 500 members by the end of the summer. Many landlords in Simcoe county who want to join the association could call Ms Richardson. She's from Midland.

She indicated that she supports Bill 20 in principle and suggests that it be sent to a standing committee of the Legislature where it could be fine-tuned to meet some of the minor concerns that the landlords may have.

I believe that the recent proposals by this NDP government make it imperative that Bill 20 is passed. For example, on October 8, 1992, I spoke in support of a resolution from my colleague the member for Mississauga South which opposed the Minister of Housing's draft legislation which will allow owners to create apartments in a house without municipal zoning approval.

I'm opposed to this accessory apartment legislation because it fails to provide adequate legal protection for home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments. It fails to recognize that these apartments may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbours. It interferes with municipal zoning authority and negates official plans and decades of land-use planning decisions. It fails to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments and it fails to consider how municipalities and school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of these accessory buildings.

It fails to ensure that there is a mechanism in place like Bill 20 contains for the speedy eviction of tenants who have been convicted of certain narcotic offenses committed in connection with the rented accessory apartment.

The member for Mississauga South who brought this resolution to us here in the Legislature last October also raised the issue of non-profit housing subsidies here in the House two days ago. At that time, she indicated that in 1993-94, the monthly subsidy for non-profit housing would be a staggering $854 per household. In 1981, there was a total of 68,000 units with a total subsidy of $428,000. In 1992-93, there were 94,000 units; in 1993-94, there'll be 106,000; in 1994-95, there'll be 111,000 at a total subsidy cost of $977,000, and by the year 1995-96, there'll be 114,000 constructed units and a total subsidy cost to the taxpayer of $1 billion.

We need this legislation.

Perhaps it is time for this government to take note that it always advocated a system of shelter allowances which would provide direct financial assistance to needy tenants to rent their own apartments at a fraction of the cost of building and maintaining non-profit units. Subsidize the individual, not the facility. Allow needy tenants to remain in their own homes, rather than forcing them to relocate to new complexes or neighbourhoods. This would mean that the government would not have to pay millions of dollars to construct new units, as well as supplying operating subsidies.

Government members should join their opposition colleagues to give speedy passage to Bill 20,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville for bringing this legislation forward for a thorough debate, and to bring the aspects of those some 400 people, drug dealers, who are living in subsidized housing. I want to say that this brings it to the attention of many people who are not totally aware.

It was interesting that in the June 1 Toronto Sun, "Housing Horror" is what the headline is:

"But should programs keep charging ahead and charging us when there are 700,000 government-subsidized units across Canada? When annual operating budgets just in Ontario are expected to hit $1 billion in just two more years? When Queen's Park will impose more than $2 billion in new taxes" -- in this budget -- "just to keep afloat? When there are more vacancies than there have been in years?

"There are plenty of examples of public subsidies for low-income tenants being higher than the rent for private apartments that are sitting empty. But instead we get assurances that everything is hunky-dory."

What they're saying in this is an independent review is overdue. We could pay for it from the social housing industry's bills. It could save billions.

I would hope that the government members would indicate that they would support this legislation because I think it is important.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I would remind the member that we are here to debate Bill 20, and I wanted to thank Mr Runciman, the member, for highlighting a very serious problem. We certainly all here in this House want tenants, whether they live in public or private accommodation, to live in a safe environment.

On the surface, Mr Runciman's proposal sounds reasonable, but upon further study it is revealed that there is a constitutional and a legislative problem. There are fundamental problems in the two parts of the bill for tenant eviction and the problems make the bill in fact useless.

First of all, in the first proposal, where a prosecutor initiates eviction, the narcotics offences are prosecuted by the federal Department of Justice in a criminal court. Because criminal courts follow rules and procedures established by federal law, an application about a civil matter such as this, like eviction, would not be permitted. The law, if passed, would be useless. Also, I'd like to point out that what he is proposing amounts to giving a federal prosecutor the right to apply for what is an additional punishment for committing a crime, and undoubtedly this would be challenged under the charter.

Secondly, in the bill there is a proposal that the landlord can apply for eviction. Now let's be clear. The Landlord and Tenant Act, as it now exists, is a comprehensive package to resolve any dispute between landlords and tenants. It permits landlords to apply already for evictions where a tenant commits

an act which is illegal. It also applies when a tenant or their guests interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of those premises by the tenant. It also allows for eviction when there is a risk to safety. These options are available to landlords for dealing with dangerous tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act and this is in fact faster than the Bill 20 process because evictions can happen even before criminal charges are dealt with by the courts.

There is another problem with Mr Runciman's proposal. The bill does not seem to set out any procedure to be used. This means that an application of the type that I just mentioned would have to be made using the regular and very costly rules of the court rather than the simpler process set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Another further problem I see with the proposed Bill 20 is that it further divides our society. It applies not just to those who live in public housing, but it applies to everyone who rents in Ontario. It creates two classes of people: those who own their homes and those who rent their homes. Home owners, condo owners and those who live in cooperative housing in Ontario don't face the loss of their housing if they commit an illegal act, and what Mr Runciman is saying is that those others who rent do face this problem. In the building where I live, there are those who own their units and those who rent their units. So it would be splitting and making people treated differently on that basis.

A further question I have for Mr Runciman is, you are proposing that this policy be in effect for drug dealers. Why not, I ask you, persons convicted of violent crime such as murder, sexual assault, spousal assault, child abuse, domestic violence? Why not include those?

To conclude, there is a great concern that I share. Tenants are entitled to safe homes and to not be surrounded by drug dealers. There is a clear process under the Landlord and Tenant Act, also in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, where we can evict even sooner in a speeded-up process.

I suggest that the best, most efficient way of dealing with this problem is to open the Landlord and Tenant Act for review.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will start by congratulating my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville in bringing forward this act,

An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords. Above all, this is to protect the innocent tenants who live around these crack dealers. We know that in Metro Housing alone we have some 400 cases of drug dealers existing in this housing today and the police find it very difficult to get these people out, as does the management of the housing.

I'd like to start by reviewing some of the costs and negative impacts of illegal drug trafficking. We know that the direct costs to society are $1.9 billion a year. It's estimated that the indirect costs are perhaps five times that. We know that drugs destroy families and, above all, when we have young children who are in proximity to these drug dealers, they are in the formative years when they can easily be dragged into crime. We know that drug dealers are using young people as runners for them and the easy, quick, large money that they earn attracts them to crime. We must set a better example. We must protect these people.

There's an incredible burden on the state through added costs of health care, UIC, welfare, policing and correctional facilities as a result of any crime related to drugs.

Many of the people who are involved in drugs, who become users of drugs, end up going to the United States for treatment at the cost of the Ontario health service. So the taxpayers of Ontario, whether they are in proximity to drug dealers or not, end up being the victims of these drug dealers. We spent, in 1991, $30 million in sending people to the US for drug rehabilitation.

There's a tremendous crack problem in such areas as Regent Park, Alexander Park, Parkdale, Lawrence Heights, which are all ravaged by crack dealers. Law-abiding tenants in these housing complexes need relief and, above all, they need protection from drug dealers. There are many other problems in communities which can be certainly improved if we can take away this cancer on society.

Let's just look at the history of the lack of adequate government response to this problem. During the last government's reign, Ken Black did a study on illegal drugs and his study was widely praised. The Premier of the day named him anti-drug minister to emphasize the importance of the drug problem in Ontario. However, unfortunately he made him a part-time minister and also made him, curiously enough, Minister of Tourism at the same time. I find this a rather peculiar combination.

In 1989, the Liberal government of the day pledged to add 32 extra OPP officers to the drug squad, but unfortunately they waited over a year before they fulfilled this commitment.

One of the first acts of the NDP, when it came to power, was to disband the anti-drug ministry, which was certainly the wrong message to those drug dealers in Ontario and to the people of Ontario. They moved the responsibility for this to the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, and by downgrading this problem we saw that the government certainly thought there was no significant problem, and in fact we have seen no significant action by the PA, who is Mr Mammoliti, the member for Downsview. We've seen no activities of any significance on this particular matter.

We know that other changes need to occur, and they are changes to the liquor act which would permit relocation of licensed premises where anybody knowingly permits the use of these premises for trafficking or with knowledge that there are people on the premises who have possession of drugs. We need amendments to the trespass act to make it easier for private property owners of shopping malls and other premises to be able to police these activities and we need to help school boards by providing additional powers to make it easy to obtain injunctions to keep undesirable people off the premises.

In closing, I would say that our leader, Mr Harris, has visited crack houses to see just the nature of these problems. I believe the leader of the Liberal Party has indeed done the same.

We hope that all parties will support this legislation, because it's for the safety and the security of our children, who must be our most precious commodity. We as legislators must find it incumbent upon ourselves to protect these innocent children. I believe that Bill 20 is a positive step in dealing with this insidious drug problem. I will close now to leave some time for my colleague to close.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have lived at Jane and Sheppard in my riding for almost 31 years, and in that time I've seen crime reduced, especially over the last couple of years, by 42%. It's been reduced because we have been able to get rid of the drug dealers who have plagued us for a number of years. For that reason, I am going to support the member's private member's bill, because I thoroughly believe that we need to get a little tougher, a little stronger with drug dealers.

I have no pity whatsoever for drug dealers. I think that drug dealers are the scummiest of the scums, and if we don't become a little tougher, then things are just going to get worse in different communities. They're like cockroaches: You can spray a building full of cockroaches until you're blue in the face and you don't necessarily kill off those cockroaches. Those cockroaches go to different units, they spread out, they go all over the place. We've got to become a little tougher, and that's why I agree with the bill.

That's not to say that I think the bill is the best, because there are a number of amendments that I think the bill could inherit. I think, for instance, you should include the Food and Drugs Act in the amendment. What about amphetamines? What about people who sell cough syrup? What about those drug dealers? What about the ones who go to different doctors and get prescription drugs and do nothing but sell those prescription drugs on site? That's one of the amendments that I would propose at a later stage.

The issue is clear for a lot of people. They think, and the argument would be, "Why get rid of whole families? Why evict whole families?" In a lot of the cases, the families know that the father or the mother or the son is dealing drugs. When this happens, they need to pay.

Now, you say, "Children." Some people might use the argument of children. Does a drug dealer deserve to have the responsibilities of a child? My answer is that we've got to think seriously about that. Do we want to give the responsibility of children to a drug dealer? That's another reason I agree with the bill.

Then of course the argument of the Landlord and Tenant Act is a good one, but currently MTHA is evicting people even before, at times, going to court. At least this bill deals with the issue of the court's ruling on eviction and taking under consideration the family and the innocent people. I'm going to vote in favour of it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I just wanted to comment briefly on some of the speeches that I've heard from the governing party, particularly the member for Niagara Falls, who put forward the comment that this was unconstitutional and it was not possible for us to put forward a law of this nature in the provincial Legislature.

Well, part of her argument related to the fact that in many of the cases where drug offences are being prosecuted, they are prosecuted by a federal prosecutor. Well, quite frankly, it does not matter whether a private citizen prosecutes an offence, a crown attorney from the provincial government prosecutes an offence or a federal prosecutor from the federal government or representing the federal government prosecutes an offence. The law is the law, and therefore, if there are provincial laws to put into effect as a result of a criminal offence, then that can be done, as is done in the case of impaired driving.

When a person is convicted in this province of impaired driving, an immediate result is a suspension of his licence under the federal Criminal Code but, as well, there is a suspension under the Highway Traffic Act, and that is done in conjunction with the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, the argument that we cannot go into the Criminal Code and deal with the penalties associated with a criminal offence is wrong, false, and, quite frankly, it is misleading.

We believe that no one should stand behind a constitutional argument to protect drug dealers from dealing drugs in rented premises in this province. Therefore, I challenge all of the government members not to stand behind a fallacious constitutional argument in order to put down this bill.

Mr Runciman: I want to thank all of those who participated in the debate today, and I want to say in respect to the legal arguments put forward by members of the government side that I've had four lawyers in this Legislature -- representing different parties, I might add -- come forward to indicate that the constitutional questions and other legal arguments put forward by the government members were indeed inaccurate. I think it reflects badly on the research department for the government, I must say.

I want to say again that this is a significant problem. I mentioned at the outset that there are something like 400 crack dealers in Metro Housing. This is a significant problem. So to have members opposite, specifically the member for London South, express concern -- it's interesting. At the outset I said the only people who have expressed concern at this juncture to me were lawyers who represent landlords attempting to achieve evictions through the process that's now in place. Obviously there is a serious problem that currently exists and we have to do something.

There may be some problems in terms of this legislation; I freely admit that. But this exercise is to approve of the principle, and I think all of us can agree -- I hope all of us can agree -- that we have to deal with this vermin. We have to send out the message that we want these people out of public housing. We want them out and we want them out as quickly as possible.

I'll give you an example. There are about 360 units in the Alexandra Park housing complex at Dundas.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: There's an NDP member -- what riding does he represent? Chatham-Kent. Chatham-Kent apparently has no problem with crack dealers operating in subsidized public housing. The member for Chatham-Kent --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Runciman: The member for Chatham-Kent is interjecting that he has no problem with crack dealers operating beside public schools in this province like what's happening -- beside Alexandra Park, the complex, is Ryerson Public School. The police estimate 15 to 20 crack houses operating in that public housing complex --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Runciman: -- right beside a public school. And the member from Chatham-Kent apparently has no problem with that; no problem.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Runciman: The Jane-Finch area --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Thank you. Order, please.

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 11, Mr Ramsay's private member's bill.

Any members opposing a vote on this motion, on this bill, please rise.

Seeing none, all those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

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

The bill has been ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, I would request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development.

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

All those opposed please rise.

Yes, we have a clear majority. The bill will proceed to social development.

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with Mr Runciman's private member's motion, ballot item number 12. Do we have anyone opposed to a vote on this motion? If so, please rise.

All those in favour of Mr Runciman's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "nays" have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Runciman's motion please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Dadamo, Daigeler, Harnick, Harris, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Waters.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. All those opposed to Mr Runciman's motion please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Malkowski, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 29; the nays are 25. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The bill will be ordered to committee of the whole House.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

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

All those opposed to sending the bill to the standing committee on justice, please rise and remain standing.

A majority is in favour of sending the bill to the standing committee on justice, and it is so ordered.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

ESTIMATES

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): All members should rise, please.

The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1994, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Signed at Toronto, June 3, 1993.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This week is Mining Week in Ontario. Members of the Legislature will have received a booklet from the Ontario Mining Association titled Mining: Building Ontario's Future. It provides important facts on the industry and its critical place in Ontario's economy.

The mineral industry has historically played a key role in the economic development of this province, making contributions to employment, wealth generation, tax coffers, value-added materials and trade balance. However, over the past few years, the Ontario mining industry has suffered from low commodity prices, increased international competition and escalating costs of production that are serving to weaken its competitive position.

The provincial government cannot directly influence the price of nickel, gold, zinc, copper etc, nor does the province have control over the development of the mineral industry in other nations. However, the provincial government is in a position to assist the mineral industry to continue to play a vital role in the economic development of Ontario through a review of largely government-mandated costs of production incurred by this industry.

During a recent tour across the province to visit the mining sites and to meet with the front-line personnel, they indicated this government was showing little interest in helping to reduce their costs. One example which was brought to our attention time and time again was the fact that as the industry shows improvements in terms of a safer workplace, their WCB contributions continue to escalate.

Tonight, the Ontario Mining Association will be holding its annual Meet the Miners reception at the Royal Ontario Museum from 5 to 7. Meet the Miners is an important communications forum for the people of the mining industry, their associates and government officials to engage in constructive dialogue. I encourage all members of the Legislature to take advantage of this opportunity.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Ministry of Health is proceeding with plans to move 500 employees from the offices on Overlea Boulevard, where they have been effectively housed for 25 years, to another location.

The rationale for this move is not known. It is rumoured, unfortunately, that the ministry wishes more attractive accommodation. What we do know is that the existing site is conveniently accessed by public transit.

The present owners of the properties are willing to negotiate concerning the space in question. As the government is committed to downsizing, the space cannot be at issue, but cost should be a consideration and a move of this nature will be costly.

In addition to the Ministry of Health, three other ministries are located in the Overlea offices. The lease for these offices expires in June 1994. There has been no indication that these ministries will be staying. If they leave, it will result in the loss of 1,000 employees from the area. The spinoff effect of this loss will impact hard on East York and will have dire economic repercussions.

At a time when all levels of government need to promote economic development and job creation, this move by the government will severely inhibit East York's ability to develop business growth in the Leaside-Thorncliffe area.

What is necessary now is a strong statement from Management Board directing the Ministry of Government Services to review the leases where they presently exist.

At a time when major ministry relocation projects are being reversed, I would strongly suggest another look be given at the appropriateness and the necessity of this proposal.

WINE AND DINE 93

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a very exciting and appetizing event: Wine and Dine 93.

This first annual celebration of Ontario wine and food started earlier this week and will run through June 27. Wine and Dine 93 is a very special event indeed. Thirty-four chefs from Toronto to Niagara have combined forces with 13 Ontario wineries to create a dining experience that won't soon be forgotten.

Each participating chef has created special dishes made with fine Ontario ingredients, and this tasty cuisine has been matched to a selection of fine Ontario wines.

In addition to great food and wine pairings, each participating restaurant has organized special events such as winemakers' tastings and winemakers' dinners.

This allows patrons a chance to meet some of the Ontario top winemakers and creative chefs. Wine and Dine 93 also offers participants a chance to win great prizes.

Every Wine and Dine patron will receive a special passport. Once it has been stamped by three participating restaurants, it can be entered in a Wine and Dine sweepstakes. Lucky winners will receive one of 65 VIP winery tours or one of the 58 complimentary dinners for two.

I would like to congratulate the organizers of Wine and Dine 93 for coming up with a unique way of promoting Ontario's splendid agricultural products.

I urge members of this House to spread the word about Wine and Dine 93.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have waited all week for this government to announce that this is National Access Awareness Week, but alas to no avail.

This week is designed to raise people's awareness about the disabled community and the barriers they face in attempting to lead a normal mainstream lifestyle. The intention is to highlight obstacles and barriers that exist so that they can be broken down or removed, and also to pay tribute to those who have struggled selflessly for the dignity of disabled persons.

Despite consistent efforts to normalize the lifestyle of the disabled, the government has failed to act on issues that would improve the quality of life of the disabled community.

Slashing the employment equity internship program is another blow to access and indicates the low priority given to it by this government.

To date, the government has failed to act on a promise to implement a pilot project that will give direct funding to the disabled for their attendant care.

The special services at home and sheltered workshop programs have also been cut substantially.

Last, but not least, there has been no movement on the Ontarians with disabilities act.

My sincere regards to the disabled community for a very productive and rewarding week. I wish them the best in the coming year.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to remind members of the Legislature that this Saturday is Cornflower Day for ALS.

The same man who said, "I am the luckiest man in the world," when he retired from the New York Yankees in 1939, died of the disease known as ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, still often referred to as Lou Gehrig disease, is as common worldwide as multiple sclerosis.

ALS is a fatal neuromuscular disease that strikes one in every 1,000 Canadian adults. ALS crosses all social and economic boundaries. The average life expectancy of a person with ALS is two and a half years. ALS affects twice as many men as women.

At present, there is reason to hope that a cure is within reach. Scientists have discovered the gene that causes ALS and are now working towards a treatment and eventual cure.

For the past eight years, the ALS Society of Canada has held the annual cornflower campaign to raise funds for medical research. To commemorate Lou Gehrig's death, this Saturday volunteers in communities throughout Ontario will be selling cornflowers to raise awareness for ALS and to ask for donations to this very worthy cause. In my riding of Dufferin-Peel, the Orangeville Optimist Club is organizing the local cornflower campaign and will be offering the symbolic cornflower in exchange for a donation to ALS.

All of the money raised during Cornflower Day this year will be used for research into the cause and cure of ALS and to increase public awareness. When you see the volunteers with the blue cornflowers, please give generously so that together we can eradicate this devastating disease.

TEN STEPS TO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a group from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that is participating in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Ten Steps to Community Action program.

This is a program that aims to develop the kinds of leadership skills that rural communities need in order to ensure their survival as vibrant places to work and grow.

I'm proud to recall that it was first introduced about a year ago by the current Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Honourable Elmer Buchanan.

I would like to thank Linda Jones, who has been the program coordinator this year, and give special recognition to this group as they visit with us today in the Legislature.

I have had a lot to say about rural Ontario since I've been a member of the Legislature. You will recall that last year I introduced a private member's resolution on rural affairs. This is a very timely visit because the Ten Steps program is now part of Jobs Ontario Community Action, which was announced in the budget. Jobs Ontario Community Action has a strong rural component and it shows that my resolution and the hard work of the rural advisory committee in bringing attention to the needs of rural Ontario have been listened to.

Now we have an element of Jobs Ontario that will allow rural people to invest in their own communities and ensure that rural areas remain culturally and economically viable. I'm particularly pleased to see these people here today because it shows their commitment to making their own small part of the world a better place. It's good to see people who are working together so that our rural routes and small towns remain areas that we are proud to call home.

I'd like to once again thank this group for visiting the Legislature today and for participating in this program. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the 16 Lennox and Addington Ten Steps to Community Action group members to the Legislature today.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the NDP government's announcement of potential dump sites in the greater Toronto area. For 365 days, people in York, Durham and Peel have been living in constant turmoil.

Last year, the region of York launched a charter challenge against the NDP government on the grounds that the whole Interim Waste Authority process is terminally flawed.

How ironic that on June 1, 1993, just one day after this government introduced the Environmental Bill of Rights, the trial judge supported York region's anti-dump court case by giving the go-ahead for a full trial.

I want to read into the record part of the statement made by Eldred King, the chair of York region, regarding the court's ruling:

"York region has been completely vindicated in its claim that the IWA search process is invalid.

"The June 1 court decision that Mayor Bob Johnston, town of Georgina, is entitled to a trial of his claim that the IWA search process violated York region residents' rights to fundamental justice and equality clearly shows there is a serious question about the legality of what the IWA is doing.

"The government should stop the search process immediately until the legality of what it is doing is settled. Why spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per week on work that may have to be redone," King said. "This is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money at a time when fiscal constraint should be the government's watchword."

Minister, do what my leader, Lyn McLeod, has urged from the beginning: Scrap the Interim Waste Authority process. Scrap Bill 143. Restore a true environmental assessment process with all alternatives on the table.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The NDP Agenda for People that helped elect Bob Rae's government has become an agenda for disaster. GO Transit will hurt 5,000 people in York region who need help most. Without consultation or consideration of their ability to pay, transit riders from Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan will pay close to 100% more when they go to work or go to the doctor's office or travel to school, especially when they use GO Transit.

Public transit is used by people who need it most, people with health and physical disabilities of many kinds -- blindness, epilepsy, strokes and other different disorders -- people who cannot afford a car, seniors and members of the general public who don't drive. Yet the Bob Rae cutback agenda is no longer an agenda for people; it's a senseless, hurtful agenda for disaster for transit riders who rely on public transportation systems.

Don't believe the government either when it announces toll roads for new highways and roads. When I was reading Bill 17, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the fine print says, "The corporation may make regulations designating any highway as a toll highway."

This is highway robbery in the 1990s. They came along and said, "We will do it for toll roads." You read the fine print, the way I did yesterday in getting ready for the bill, and they're going to, maybe, toll every road, so any 400 road, any highway, any construction.

Interjection: Come on.

Mr Cousens: Come on? Then take it out of Bill 17 so that we don't have to face up with more hurtful, disastrous actions for people in the province of Ontario.

LA SALLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mine's a little bit more positive.

The town of La Salle is proud to bring forth another strawberry festival, which promises to be even more successful than last year's. This tasty event will begin Friday, June 4, and continue through Sunday, June 6. The festival is entering its sixth year, and by all past accounts, thousands of pints of strawberries will be eaten this weekend.

Family fun is the theme again. Organizers have many interesting events planned, primarily along Front Road in La Salle. Planners of the festival highlight the fact that 35,000 people attended last year and so are equally excited about more coming this year.

Friday evening will see the opening ceremonies, followed by a steak barbecue and entertainment by the groups the Crystals and Eddie and the Cruisers. On Friday night there will be, of course, a strawberry-eating contest, followed by the fishing derby, which will see first light at 5 am Saturday morning. The parade will begin at 10 o'clock in Turkey Creek. This will be followed by a family fun run/walk, or you can join in the volleyball tournament or participate in the baby contest and car show, where 100 vehicles will be seen.

As you can see, the La Salle Strawberry Festival this weekend will be a berry good time. I hope that the good people from Windsor, Leamington, Cottam, Tilbury, Chatham and all points in between will make the drive to La Salle for this weekend.

Mr Speaker, thanks for yourself being a berry good fellow.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ESTIMATES

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Today the 1993-94 printed estimates were tabled. Under the rules of the House, estimates must be tabled within five sessional days of a budget being presented.

As members know, the estimates are the detailed spending plans of the government and constitute the government's formal request to the Legislature for approval. Once approved by the Legislature in the Supply Act, the estimates become the legal spending authority of each ministry.

In the budget speech I indicated that during the month of June I would be reporting on the achievement of $2 billion in expenditure savings through the social contract. As a courtesy to the House, I would like to briefly outline a timetable for communications around the achievement of those savings.

Last month's budget outlined a two-part package to reduce ministry expenditures and reduce the deficit. The first part was an aggressive expenditure control plan which cut $4 billion in planned spending. The second part of our package is the social contract. As members know, those negotiations are still going on, but what I want to make absolutely clear today is that this government is fully committed to achieving $2 billion in savings. We are at the same time committed to preserving services and jobs.

The savings achieved through the social contract and the expenditure control plan, $6 billion in total, mean that for the first time in 50 years, operating spending by the government of Ontario is actually going down. The 1993 budget provides for total operating expenditures of $50 billion, including $4 billion in reductions from the expenditure control plan and $2 billion from the social contract negotiations. The 1993-94 ministry estimates include the expenditure control plan savings and will subsequently be adjusted to fully reflect the $2 billion in measures resulting from the social contract negotiations.

Included in the estimates is a table of adjusted ministry expenditures reflecting sectoral social contract savings. I will be making a subsequent announcement shortly with further ministry expenditure details.

To assure the House that it will be voting on estimates which fully reflect the fiscal plan contained in the budget and to facilitate the review of the estimates, I will be asking members to amend the estimates in accordance with the changes brought forward as a result of the social contract process.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Finance and say to the people of Ontario that the chaotic management of the finances continues. I think even fairminded people, Minister of Finance, would say that nothing that you know now you didn't know in December. You could have let the school boards, the municipalities, the hospitals, the colleges, the universities know what you had in store for them for 1993.

Today they are getting close to knowing what's in store for them in 1993, and I will say to the people of the public of Ontario, those organizations are almost halfway through their year and it is only today that they are beginning to see what the government has in store for them. You could have told them that back in December.

I will also say that, as we look at some of your plans, there is a plan to save $500 million a year in pension money. I will say to the Minister of Finance -- I think he will recall this -- that he was supposed to make a payment to the pensions last year of $500 million; that was not made. He was supposed to make that payment this year; there are no plans in the budget to make that payment. Now we have the Minister of Finance saying they are going to find an additional $500 million.

I want to see where that $500 million is coming from, because that's an integral part of the social contract talks. The government promised last year to make a payment to the teachers' pension; didn't make it. It's supposed to be in this year; it's not in this year. It is delayed. That's $500 million. Now, central to the social contract discussions, is an additional $500 million in pensions, and we'll want to see that.

If one reads the public accounts, there is an unfunded liability, money owing in the teachers' pension, of almost $8 billion, yet we find these two things central to the social contract discussions: $500 million a year in savings in the pension when the government couldn't make a payment last year and is not planning to make a payment this year of $500 million. That I think is important as we look at these estimates.

Secondly, as we look at what's going on at the social contract table, I gather that the capital expenditure decisions will be as a result of the collective bargaining process. Certainly, I have no difficulty with others having a say in it, but in the final analysis, where we locate our hospitals, where we locate our schools surely should be a decision that is made by the public of Ontario, not at the collective bargaining table.

As we look at the decisions that are being made, I think in haste, for obvious reasons -- the Treasurer has to find $2 billion -- I will say there is great danger that we are going to make some fundamental mistakes in the interests of reaching a $2-billion decision very quickly with a gun at the head.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): What would you do?

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education asks what would we do. We would have started long ago to tackle it. When you have a gun to your head, you are going to make dumb decisions, and I predict, when you sign this contract -- the Premier says, "Why raise these issues now?" We are raising these issues now because when the contract comes forward on Monday, we will raise those issues on Monday.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I didn't say anything.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says there are significant savings. Again, we will look at the estimates, the savings from deferred savings. That's a strange statement to me, savings from deferred savings. Essentially, there are expenditures that should have been made this year that the Minister of Finance has simply delayed till next year. I understand that, I understand the problems they're in, but there are $540 million of savings from deferred savings. Essentially, they are simply the postponement of expenditures.

I also want to comment a little bit about some of the other things that are in the estimates. Perhaps the most challenged groups out there right now are our municipalities, our hospitals, our school boards. How they are going to handle the capital in the future is very interesting.

The province used to provide grants of $600 million a year in capital for school boards, for hospitals and for colleges and universities. You know what's going to happen in these estimates, Mr Speaker? The school boards, the hospitals, the colleges and the universities are going to have to borrow the money for the province and lend the money, the $600 million, to the province. That's part of these estimates.

The school boards and those other organizations are going to go out and borrow for the province $600 million, and then the province will let that debt run up and pay off one twentieth of that each year. Five years from now, we will owe $3 billion to the hospitals and the school boards; 10 years from now, $6 billion. That's what's in these estimates and that's why we look forward to a significant debate on them.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I just want to make a few preliminary comments about how disappointed I was not only with the budget but disappointed as well, reflected through the tabling of the estimates today.

The Premier promised us a three-pronged attack on the deficit and we agreed the deficit had to be dealt with. It was to be a three-pronged attack, he told us: roughly $2-billion tax hikes, $2 billion from the public sector employees, the extended public sector employees of the province of Ontario, and we thought there was a third prong: that they were going to cut back government spending, that they were going to participate, they themselves.

Last year the deficit was $12 billion, the Treasurer told us. It's in his estimates and it's in the budget. We know there's a tax hike of $2 billion. That should tell you that the deficit this year will be $10 billion. We know there's $2 billion coming out of the pockets of the civil servants and the public sector workers, who are also taxpayers; they're getting hit twice. That means the deficit should be $8 billion. If they actually participated, even $2 billion, the deficit should be $6 billion. But the deficit is $10 billion. Why? Because the third prong, the part where you cut back yourself, is not here.

You hiked your own spending $2 billion so taxpayers are ponying up $2 billion. The public sector workers of this province, 940,000, they're going to pony up $2 billion, and you, in a disgraceful way, are still increasing your own program spending by $2 billion. I think it's a disgrace, I think it is a betrayal and you have misled the people of this province with what you told them in your budget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party strays over the line. He should really choose his words a little more carefully and not suggest that a member is misleading.

Mr Harris: He's not misled the House today. They've hiked spending $2 billion. It was in the public statements out to the people, so I hope that clarifies it.

The Speaker: Helpful.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If everyone could come and have some honesty at the table, we'd go an awful lot further. The Liberals come along today and say, "Oh, well, you should have started sooner." You should have started back when David Peterson started spending the money a few years back because we're reaping the harvest from when they went along and had complete abandon with no responsibility and now you come forward and, as we look at your books now, it's hard to add them. I mean, you've got so many places where the rounding is so large, we're talking in the orders of billions of dollars, and you're moving money around in such a mysterious way.

The tragedy is that as we in the Legislature try to find time to look at these estimates that are being tabled today, I can just tell other members of the House who haven't been around as long that we won't have a chance. It'll all come to the last minute and there'll be a rush-through of the estimates and this Legislature will not have the time to reflect and discuss and debate and investigate the books of this government. It hasn't happened for years and it's time it started to happen, because then there is some accountability that goes on.

At this point, the government is able to use its majority to rush through anything it wants and we in opposition are not given the chance to make that kind of thorough inspection that is our right and our responsibility.

We look at this estimate process and now the Treasurer is saying, "Well, we're still hoping for $2 billion." I'm concerned with your whole concept of the future of Ontario. What we've got to do is get Ontario moving again. Have a vision for this province and this country that we're actually participating in growth. Ontario's always been known as the engine of growth in this country.

Well, you come along and say, "Here, we can actually point to the fact that the government is going down." You should also comment that business and industry are having the biggest struggle and the most difficult time they've ever had, and you as a government are adding to their problems with the kinds of budget tax hikes that you have announced. There is no doubt that you're going to be driving people out of work this year. Some 50,000 people will be losing their jobs because of the $2-billion tax hike.

I am in support, as our leader is, and I want to thank our leader, Mr Harris, for commenting on this in the way that he has. We're looking for a positive approach to the deficit and the budgetary and monetary policies of this government. It can't be done unless we have some integrity on the part of those who are sitting down. I just wish that this government and this Finance minister would come clean with the books and tell us exactly what's going on instead of --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The