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

February 13, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L162 - Thu 13 Feb 1997 / Jeu 13 Fév 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

VOICE MAIL

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

VOICE MAIL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

TEACHER-STAFF APPRECIATION WEEK

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ALTA WHITFIELD

PLANT CLOSURE

CARDIAC SURGERY

VALERIE ORR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES / PAGES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

TOURISM RESERVATION NETWORK

STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND TUITION FEES

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

GROW ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

DRY-CLEANING CHEMICALS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CLASS SIZE

RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIREARMS CONTROL

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Patten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Ottawa-Centre.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My private member's motion is to address the failings of a system that has caused severely mentally ill persons to fall between the cracks. My objective in bringing this bill forward is to enable them and their families to get the very best treatment that they so desperately need and deserve.

These severely mentally ill persons often lack the insight to continue treatment after they are released from hospital and/or after acute symptoms have dissipated. They are victims of a revolving-door syndrome because they end up in hospital several times a year, following a pattern of treatment, release, feeling better, non-compliance with medication, severe deterioration and return to hospital. Schizophrenics in particular occupy more hospital beds than people with cancer, heart disease, diabetes and arthritis combined.

Schizophrenia strikes one in 100 people at some point in his or her lifetime. According to the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, 10 years after their first schizophrenic episode 25% have recovered completely; another 25% are much improved and living fairly independent lives; 25%, although improved, still need extensive support; 15% are hospitalized and show no improvement; and 10% have killed themselves.

It is estimated that at any given time, 2% of the population is suffering from a mental illness. A serious mental illness would include other diagnosable disorders, such as manic-depressive illness and other psychoses.

I believe that people have the right to be healthy. The purpose of the Mental Health Act is to provide treatment and to care where it is needed. Yet the very nature of some types of mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, which is a biological brain disease, prohibits the recognition of the illness by those who are acutely ill. Accordingly, they are unable to exercise their right to receive treatment.

My bill is not changing the process for involuntary admission. There are still three methods for application for psychiatric assessment: by a physician, a justice of the peace or a peace officer. There would still be a two-step test to be satisfied, and the first step remains the same.

Currently, in the second step, one ground for involuntary admission is that a person is suffering from a mental disorder that is likely to result in "imminent and serious physical impairment of the person." The word "imminent" is a problem for psychiatrists and for others, as it is taken to mean "immediate." Also, if the patient being admitted or any person on his or her behalf makes an application to a review board, the psychiatrist must be able to satisfy that board that he or she has met the criteria. This is too often problematic. "Imminent" became the test for all standards, according to the original drafter of the bill, which was not the intent of the bill.

My bill proposes two modifications: The first is to remove the word "imminent," while keeping the rest of the phrase, "serious physical impairment of the person." The second change I'm proposing is to add an additional criterion which is as follows: "Substantial mental or physical deterioration of the person that is likely to be alleviated by treatment in a psychiatric facility."

What we are trying to accomplish with these changes is to ensure that a person who suffers from a mental disorder may be admitted to a psychiatric facility as an involuntary patient if the disorder is likely to result in serious physical impairment or a substantial physical or mental deterioration of the person.

Many persons with schizophrenia live on the streets with no treatment. The Schizophrenia Society of Ontario claims that at least one third of the homeless have schizophrenia. Many others are in prison for crimes committed while in a psychotic state.

I know at first hand from my days as Minister of Correctional Services that many persons who were severely mentally ill ended up in the correctional system. On any given day, 15% to 20% of inmates in the provincial correctional system are mentally ill and could benefit from psychiatric or psychological intervention; 4% to 5% are so seriously mentally ill that they require heavy medication. Correctional officers are not equipped to deal with these situations.

In the past couple of years in my community of Ottawa-Carleton, there have been many unfortunate incidences which resulted in tragedies, including the death of a well known television personality as he left his office, a nurse as she arrived home from a night shift, a Department of Justice lawyer who was shot by her husband, and an 18-year-old youth shot by his father. Recently an 81-year-old woman was stabbed five times at a bus stop. An incident of possible violence at the Prime Minister's residence by an intruder was averted. These crimes were committed by people with a history of severe mental disorders who lived in the community but were not receiving treatment.

I know that some of you are concerned about the rights of persons to make their own decisions about refusing treatment, and I am too, but I ask you to consider this: People with schizophrenia, the most severe of the mental illnesses, have serious difficulty obtaining treatment. The very nature of schizophrenia prevents those afflicted from recognizing their own illness. They often refuse the treatment and care that they desperately need. Refusing treatment is a common characteristic of the illness because they lack insight and cannot recognize their need for help.

Excellent treatment is available, according to Dr Lapierre, psychiatrist and chief at the Royal Ottawa Hospital and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa. If patients are not treated effectively early they may have a worse outcome. Dr Lapierre claims that by the time he gets some patients they have deteriorated to the point where they need several months of treatment,

whereas had he had them much earlier he could have had them functioning much better in a few weeks.

Perhaps one of the most tragic cases I've come across is that of the Deighton family in Chesterville, just outside of Ottawa-Carleton. While there were indications of some family problems, the Deightons were private people who kept things to themselves. But Sheila Deighton lost both a husband and her firstborn son to schizophrenia; one killed the other in the family home. At the time, neither had been diagnosed with the disease although both had tried to access help.

Mr Deighton, who killed his son in a delusional state, had had a 26-year history of mental illness. He had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication by the family physician once earlier on, but stopped taking it because of side-effects. Their son Al had a serious suicide attempt in his late teens but refused treatment at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. He was not involuntarily admitted because he did not satisfy the test. Months later, when he finally did agree to treatment, he was not admitted because there was no space available at the time.

That's when things began to escalate in the family home and the tension began to build as the troubled relationship between father and son became unbearable, leading to a confrontation that resulted in the fatal shooting. Mr Deighton spent four and a half months in the Cornwall Jail until he was admitted to a psychiatric facility where for the first time he got the treatment that he so desperately needed. When he became fit to stand trial, he was found not criminally responsible for the death of his son.

Sheila Deighton is a remarkable woman. She has stuck by her husband and family and they have finally been able to access resources for the whole family. They are all working very hard to be reunited. The tragedy is that it had to take a tragedy to access the resources they so desperately needed.

I believe we must find a way as a society to balance the rights of persons to make their own decisions while recognizing that persons also have the right to be treated by the mental health system when they are not capable of making that decision for themselves. The proposed amendments in my bill continue to respect the rights of individuals while giving appropriate scope to the physician to make an application for a psychiatric assessment of the person.

I have received expressions of support for this bill from many persons, most notably the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, representing 2,000 members. The president of that society, Selena Volpatti, is in the gallery with us today, as is Dr Russel Fleming, chief psychiatrist from Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre. Ms Volpatti wrote to me after I introduced my bill two and a half weeks ago:

"Thank you for your support of our cause. Due to the incidence of schizophrenia, at any one point in time, there are over 48,000 people in Ontario suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenia. Your bill can help decrease that suffering."

There is also a need to look at how we can provide continuing community treatment upon discharge. Although some provinces have attempted to accommodate such a provision in their mental health legislation, this goes beyond the scope of this particular bill. However, given the disproportionate number of hospital-day stays for this disease as compared with others, this private member's bill should be viewed as a necessary first step to address the very serious consequences for severely mentally ill persons and their families when they cannot access treatment. I trust that my colleagues on all sides of the House will agree with me and support this bill.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The issues that the member has raised in discussing his bill are indeed serious ones and all of us know of tragedies, some within our own families, within our own communities, that have occurred with people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness who have become a danger to themselves or others.

In making my comments, I want to be very clear that I know from personal experience how wrenching it can be for a family whose major goal in life is to protect someone who is unable to look after themselves or unwilling to take medication that would help that. I know how tragic that is and I know the consequences are often tragedies for others who are not even involved.

We already have

an act that gives us an ability to involuntarily institutionalize people who are a danger to themselves or others. What the member is proposing is a loosening of those criteria, which I respectfully submit would not guarantee treatment, which is what he is talking about.

We basically are looking at a situation in our society today where we are seeing the closure of institutions which normally would have been the place where involuntarily committed people would have been sent. The member himself says, "Yes, the person got a committal order, they were assessed, but there was no treatment available for them." That is only going to get worse. This government is in the process of restructuring hospitals. They have already restructured psychiatric facilities in Thunder Bay. We expect that to happen in the London-St Thomas area.

The reality is that all this member's bill would do would be to give the police an excuse to detain people. We have to be very careful when we have a situation where we cannot guarantee treatment, which I know is what the member wants and what the families want; when we really are looking at a situation where people who behave peculiarly are immediately looked upon as being possible mental patients and are being seen as a threat to others when in fact that may not be the case. You need a very high threshold in order to involuntarily incarcerate someone.

Part of our task today is to try to look at that other side and look at the rights issues. The member says constitutional rights are still protected. There is a real question about that. Certainly the ARCH group, the Parkdale Legal Clinic, the Canadian Mental Health Association are very concerned that this lower threshold the member is talking about would indeed infringe upon the rights. They are saying, "Let's have a further discussion of this." If this Legislature decides to pass second reading of this bill today, let's send it to the justice committee.

Let's canvass all the viewpoints and look at the reality of the rights issues, the reality of whether or not this lower threshold would guarantee the treatment that this member wants to see.

I will say to you very frankly that one of the biggest issues for those who are trying to care for those who have schizophrenia in particular, but also other forms of delusional illness, is that there are very few community-based organizations in place to offer the kind of services that would allow people to access them without being incarcerated.

I'm going to be a bit provocative and read from Thomas Szasz, who has been considered to be a renegade psychiatrist in the United States but who has spent his entire career as a psychiatrist, working hard to prevent the involuntary incarceration of people in mental institutions. In his book The Second Sin, on page 88, Dr Szasz makes the following observations:

"It has long been popular to bewail and denounce the inhumanity of incarcerating sane men in madhouses. To incarcerate so-called insane men is, in this view, permissible, because for them the `hospitalization' is a form of medical treatment, unpleasant to be sure, but always necessary and often helpful.

"This view is wrong, and not only because there is no such thing as mental illness." This is a psychiatrist who talks about the myth of mental illness. "It is wrong also because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the medical ethic. In medicine a dangerous or mutilating intervention is permitted, not so much because it helps the sick person recover from his illness as because he wants it. For example, a patient with a cancerous lung may have part of his lung removed. It would indeed be horrible if a surgeon did this to a person whose lung is perfectly healthy.

But it would also be horrible if a surgeon did this to a cancerous patient against his will. For, in the final analysis, what makes a medical intervention morally permissible is not that it is therapeutic, but that it is something the patient wants. Similarly, what makes the quasi-medical intervention of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization morally impermissible is not that it is harmful, but that it is something the so-called patient does not want.

"Involuntary mental hospitalization is like slavery. Refining the standards for commitment is like prettifying the slave plantations."

This is an extreme view, and I would say that many of us would want to have a thorough discussion about the kinds of issues raised in Doctor Szasz's statement and the kinds of concerns raised by the legal clinics, raised by those who really are concerned about involuntary medical treatment of people against their will.

We just went through a very long process of talking about the health consent act. One of the provisions that was put in there, the so-called Ulysses clause, was an attempt to deal with some of the concerns of those who have been diagnosed as having a mental illness, as well as their families' concern, that when people are well enough to make decisions they can make a decision that, should they become ill again and refuse treatment, they have already given their permission for. I believe that is a very important clause, and it is one that should give us some comfort around some of the situations.

I also believe we should not completely dismiss out of hand the concerns the member for Ottawa Centre has raised. I believe this is an opportunity for us to canvass all the issues and to try to come to a solution that is going to be protective not only of those who suffer from mental conditions themselves but the rest of society.

But to simply go ahead and lower this threshold in the way suggested without that thorough discussion, without being sure we are not damaging the very strong principle we have developed over years in this province that those who are treated by medical personnel are treated only with their consent -- I think we need to look very carefully at that, and I would urge the members that if it is the will of this House to pass this bill, that at the very least it be directed to the justice committee for a thorough discussion of the issues of these conflicting ethics.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I am pleased today to rise to enter into this debate with the member for Ottawa Centre. I must say, as have both members who have spoken so far, that this discussion touches all people. I think each of us knows a family affected by schizophrenia or we know someone who is touched by it.

In my particular riding I have a family with a young man who, as the member for Ottawa Centre said, works well in the community and is in the community, stays on his medication and is fine; he starts to think he's feeling okay and doesn't need to take his medication, and as he doesn't take his medication certain things start to happen to him.

His parents call me many times as he's living on the streets, living in garages, worried about him and unable to do something for him. I have sat with them, talked to them and shed tears with them, so I feel very strongly about this issue too, as I know my colleagues opposite do, and we need to do something about this issue. It breaks my heart to think about this, yet when I read this bill today I wonder how this is going to help them.

In the mental health legislation we've had a history of trying to put Band-Aids on things that aren't working within the system. We have a history that has plagued the governments before us. As you know, this legislation was introduced by the Liberal government, of which the member opposite was a cabinet minister at that time, and we tried to talk about this word "imminent" then. Along the road we have taken in reforming mental health, some mistakes have been made. I am the first to admit that, as I think many people in this House are.

My members, especially Mr Vankoughnet and Mr Rollins, are very concerned about this issue. They want to do the right thing for families with schizophrenia and for mental health as a whole.

We've been working on mental health for a number of years. In 1983 the Heseltine report came out and suggested that we make a number of changes to mental health. It talked at that particular time -- in 1981 the Provincial Community Mental Health Committee, under the direction of Robert Graham, developed a framework for the delivery of a community mental health service in Ontario. In this report they made many recommendations that would coordinate and integrate mental health within our communities.

As the member from the third party has talked about, we have been downsizing institutions and trying to get people into the community, so we face a number of challenges. All three governments have been involved in this. We need to look very carefully at how we can put the mental health legislation we have on our records to meet the changing needs in mental health. Some of the things we have all talked about doing is putting more money into community mental health. We're all trying to do that, as I think mental health is a non-partisan issue in this House.

As I mentioned before, any changes we make to the Mental Health Act legislation have to be done cautiously. We have to get together, we have to talk to all groups affected by this. In this case, because we're sitting in January as opposed to coming back in March or April -- I'm sure there are things all of us would have done to make this legislation a little different and maybe more acceptable to us all.

Today as we vote -- and we're voting as a free vote on our side -- I want everyone to be aware that we're not voting against doing something to help schizophrenia in our community. But I am concerned about the way the bill is written; there are some things that really bother me. I'm not in any way saying that the member for Ottawa Centre has not done a good job on this, but if I were going to be doing this bill there are things I would want to add. I am very concerned that if we take this bill to committee today, we haven't touched some sections -- if we don't get unanimous agreement, I can't make changes to those.

It's my commitment today to say that I'm very concerned about this issue too, to the member for Ottawa Centre. This is an issue that all of us want to do something about and I think we should come together and do something about this.

I want to talk about some of the things that I think need to be changed in this bill and that have not been opened up for us to be able to discuss in committee. The member for Ottawa South would like to add the criterion "substantial mental or physical deterioration of a person is likely to be alleviated by treatment in a psychiatric facility" to the criteria to order a psychiatric assessment. The phrase "is likely to be alleviated by treatment in a psychiatric facility" is problematic, because the police and the justices of the peace usually do not have the expertise to determine whether treatment in a psychiatric facility will alleviate substantial mental or physical deterioration.

This problem is made more difficult when one considers that a physician, police officer or justice of the peace must form the opinion that alleviation of a substantial mental or physical deterioration is likely. Accordingly, this requirement may operate to prevent physicians, the police or a justice of the peace from seeking a person's examination or assessment where they do not have the expertise and/or enough information to form an opinion about the benefits of treatment or whether the benefits are likely.

In my discussions with caucus colleagues, the minister responsible for seniors, the Honourable Cam Jackson, pointed out that there is some potential here for the abuse of seniors, and I'm very concerned about this. A senior in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's may be found by police officers wandering around the streets, having had a temporary memory lapse, as we know happens in the introductory stages of Alzheimer's. The policeman at that point has to decide whether this person would benefit from being put into a psychiatric hospital. That's a very difficult decision for a policeman to make.

If it were my mother and it was the introductory stages of Alzheimer's, I would like my mother to be brought home to familiar surroundings so that I could help in making some determination of what we would need to be able to help her. I think it's very important that we consider what we're asking here today our policemen and our justices of the peace to decide, and how we can better make this work for the families and friends of people with schizophrenia.

The word "imminent" in the Mental Health Act has caused concern for a great deal of time. I certainly am cognizant of that and I certainly want to do something about that. I think we could introduce a more comprehensive piece of legislation.

For instance, I think we need to have considerable debate. I know that we need to have it within our caucus here and probably within the other two caucuses and then as a three-caucus team, to talk about community treatment orders. These have been used in a number of areas in the United States and across Canada. What happens in this case is that they outline a particular course of treatment for a patient, who must comply with the orders or the psychiatrist can ask the patient to come in for an examination. If they refuse, the psychiatrist can order the person's apprehension for the purpose of an examination.

This

section in the act has not been opened at all today under the member for Ottawa Centre's bill. I would like to come together once again to talk about these things with the schizophrenia society, with mental health, with some of our other groups to make this good legislation.

We have piecemealed this legislation for so long, let's spend a little longer and get this legislation right. The people who are suffering from this deserve our help on this issue.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Mr Patten's bill is an important effort to close a gap in the health care system. The Mental Health Act, as it stands, is impeding those who are in a position to help the dangerously mentally ill. The problem is that the

interpretation of "danger" is too strict, and that means that desperately ill people get help only when they go to extremes of anti-social and criminal behaviour.

Apart from needless human suffering, the cost to society -- to its social, health and justice systems -- is much greater than if intervention has been allowed to occur earlier. In our desire to protect the rights of the individual, we hold that the only way to maintain those rights is by what people say. In our search for absolutes, we can overlook the subtle points of how those rights apply to certain people.

There are cases where an individual may not be in the position to state their needs in a simple way. Human beings are incredibly complex. Many people are unable to express their needs and feelings and rely upon the people who care for them and interpret their behaviours to understand the complex motivations behind them.

Teenagers at the height of their rebellion, when they seem to want nothing to do with us, need us more than ever. Why then do we accept an obviously disturbed person's actions as their preferred state when we can tell that they are in an agony that is even more expressive than words can say?

Some of our colleagues have said that street people have chosen to be there. "Chosen" is a hollow word when we realize that some 30% to 40% of street people suffer from schizophrenia and don't understand "choosing" the way we do. They are in the grip of an illness they certainly have not chosen and in circumstances no one would ever choose.

As Mr Patten has said, individuals have the right to be well. I think we can safely assume that the wish to be well and healthy is a universal desire. In the case of great suffering, some people might want to put an end to it all. However, in most cases, if relief from pain is offered, that is always the preferred option.

Should someone who is obviously suffering but has an illness that prevents him or her from asking for help be denied it just because they can't express their need for it in a simple way? I am thinking of the recent case of a Bowmanville man with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia who senselessly killed his elderly mother and six-year-old stepdaughter because he believed they were Satan. When his agitation was growing prior to the murders, I'm sure that those close to him had a sense of how dangerous the situation was getting but had no way to get help under the present system.

The tragedy of a situation that could have been prevented is so sadly underlined by the man saying, as the police took him away, "I wish you would just shoot me."

Mr Patten has briefly stated and described other similar cases of tragedies that were allowed to overtake the lives of entirely blameless people, and the stories are incredibly sad because every one of them is a victim.

Only days ago, another man with a history of psychiatric problems tried to drive his Jeep into the Parliament Building in Ottawa. He was in despair over the murder of his nephew a couple of years ago. Although it is lucky that no one was hurt, he is now in jail, in the same cell block as his nephew's killers.

It is a well-known fact that the sooner the mentally ill person gets treatment, the better their prognosis. The better their prognosis, the more we all gain in resources that can be directed in encouraging the growth and health of our population, and in the health and wellbeing of those who can again become whole and contributing members of their families and their communities.

Some people have said that community support services should be the option of choice. I would argue that support of this bill does not preclude the need for those services or our support of them. However, realistically we know that not enough of these services exist to meet the current need. Until there are, and to serve those in immediate need, the option of institutional care must continue to exist.

Mr Patten's bill modifies the Mental Health Act in a subtle but important way, but does not in any way alter the safeguards of the system already in place. There are a great number of people who would say that the time for these changes is long overdue.

Let's use our common sense and do what's right for these people. It's time to do it. I believe we all agree that we want to do the right thing in dealing with this issue. Let us settle the issue once and for all. Let us send it through second reading and to the justice committee, as you propose. Let's discuss it, and let's find a solution which will be satisfactory to us all.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Unfortunately the amount of time we have to debate here in private members' hour doesn't give us as members the time we need to discuss a very complex issue. In the six minutes and 32 seconds I've got, I'm going to try as best I can to put forward my point of view, which is in opposition to this particular bill. I'm going to be very direct. I'm not going to mince words because I feel very strongly about this for a number of reasons.

As other members talked about earlier, many of us in our personal lives, in our family lives, have seen people who suffer from schizophrenia go through various bouts with the illness. There are ups and downs, and those downs can be pretty down. In my particular case, my own sister Louise has had schizophrenia for over 10 years. We've known the good times and we've known the bad times with Louise.

What we must never, never lose sight of is that Louise is an individual, is a human being who has rights. If we in this Legislature try to say that somehow or other we're uncomfortable with what happens with Louise when she's having her down times, that we want to give the police and others the right to take her off the street and put her into a psychiatric institution, I very much worry what that means for Louise.

I, for one, am not going to support a piece of legislation that would make it increasingly easy for the police officers in our society today to literally go out into the streets and start sweeping the people off the streets on the basis that they think they may be suffering through a bout of a delusional illness. I think it's very, very dangerous.

The issue is simply this: We have a policy that we set out back in the early 1970s. We said we were going to start depopulating psychiatric institutions, because there was a day when it was very easy to commit people, and that's what we did. We didn't want to deal with the problem so we put them into psychiatric institutions and we said: "If we put them out of sight, they're out of mind. It's something that we don't need to deal with."

Only through the policy and a very tough decision that was made by governments in the 1970s to start depopulating institutions did people start to come back into the community so that we in the community who were not very knowledgeable about what delusional illnesses were all about had to, as a community, start dealing with it. We had to start to put in place community supports so that people who came out of institutions had somewhere to go and had some form of support when they came out into the community.

The problem we have today is that there's not enough money to put into the supports in the community, so we're seeing it in a way that I think is disserving to some, especially in places like the city of Toronto, where you see a lot of people with schizophrenia and other delusional diseases who may be out on the street and people are looking for a way to be able to take them off the street.

So I say to the member, I understand what you're trying to do and I sympathize to a certain extent that you want to make sure people are not a danger to themselves, but the present law deals with it.

For my own sister and others whom I've had to deal with inside my community who have had bouts where they've been down and they've had problems, there are presently provisions within the law that you can go to a justice of the peace and say, "I believe this particular individual is a danger to themselves or a danger to somebody else." If you're prepared as a family member to take that responsibility and go to the justice of the peace along with the patient's doctor, you can have that person committed for a period of time in order to properly deal with that particular episode.

I and my family have had to do that, and it's not pleasant, but we need to take our responsibilities as family members to assist our family members, our loved ones, when they're having a difficult time.

If we allow Bill 111 to happen, I think we're taking families off the hook to a certain extent, because it's not pleasant for families to have to go to the JP and ask to have the form 1, 2 or 3, whatever the number is, signed in order to get that person into the psychiatric institution for a period of time. What we're doing is letting the families off the hook, in my belief, so that we would allow the police to go out and do our dirty work for us. I for one, as a New Democratic member of this assembly, don't want to put the police into that situation.

I think a lot of police officers would feel uncomfortable, number one, with having that kind of power. Number two, who is going to judge? In the legislation that the member is proposing, we're talking about we would be able to put people into institutions if the physical or mental state is in deterioration. Who's to judge where that is? I'm certainly not prepared to give the police officer the right to judge just how bad a person is so that we may be able to commit them.

We have a system in place now that certainly can be improved. I have no difficulty with referring something off to a committee or with the Legislature itself dealing with a piece of legislation that tries to find some progressive ways of being able to deal with how we protect people in times of need. But to give the police that kind of power I think is really, really dangerous. It would set us back 20 or 30 years in the advances we've made over the past 20 or 30 years dealing with delusional illnesses in our society. Policies in order to deal with that in our communities would be set back a long, long way.

I simply say this: People like Louise and others are human beings. They live in our society and they have rights equal to, not greater and not lesser than, anybody else in this assembly or anybody else in our society. I think it is our responsibility as legislators to make sure we protect those rights, especially the rights of the minority. In this particular case, I think there might even be a majority of people in our society who may feel comfortable with a bill like Bill 111, but it's incumbent upon us as members of this assembly to say, "No, let's resist this."

There are presently laws in place that respect the individual and also respect society in making sure that if the person is a danger to themselves or a danger to society, there is a provision to be able to bring people into a psychiatric institution. But there's a time limit on that, for very good reasons, so that the person, when they get back on their medication and things start to clear up for them, can sign themselves out, and again, there are very good reasons why we do that as well.

I for one will not be supporting this legislation. Although I understand what the member for Ottawa Centre is trying to get at, I disagree with the way he's going about it. If you wanted to do something in order to respond to some of the needs of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, I'd be more than prepared to find some way to have an all-party committee to take a look at how we change the current act to be able to deal with some of the issues you talk about.

But to do it under Bill 111, I think there are all kinds of problems in doing it this way, and the biggest problem in the end is that many people like Louise would end up at the wrong end of the stick on this particular piece of legislation and would be very much in danger of losing civil rights that we all enjoy in this province.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I have a few minutes this morning to make some comments on this particular issue, and I'd like to start off by going back in history a little bit to November 28, when we debated Bill 91 in this House.

Bill 91 was a private member's bill put forward by the member for York-Mackenzie that basically was asking for additional rights to be given to parents relative to health care for their under-aged children. It wasn't to be able to make decisions; it was just the right to be informed about both mental and physical health care issues about their under-aged children.

It was interesting at that point in time that the member who is now proposing this bill and all of his colleagues voted against giving parents those particular rights, and now today he's asking us to give additional rights to policemen, justices of the peace and general practitioners over complete strangers. He's asking that we give those people the unilateral power to decide that a complete stranger would benefit from confinement in a psychiatric institution.

I'm sure the member, when he has a chance to respond, will be able to clarify for me why he was against the rights of parents to have some input over health care issues for their minor children and he's in favour of complete strangers having absolute control over issues of confinement for people with mental health problems. I'm sure he'll be able to explain that.

The purpose of the bill, as he sets forward, is to ensure that people with a serious mental illness are not allowed to deteriorate while living in the community, but rather get the treatment when they need it, which is often when they are incapable of making informed decisions concerning their need for medication and hospital admission. Very, very admirable. I don't think any of us would argue with this particular purpose.

The thing I'm concerned about is that, to accomplish this purpose, he's asking us to approve that justices of the peace, police officers and general practitioners are given the power to determine that a person's condition is likely to be alleviated by treatment in a psychiatric facility.

I will agree to the fact that most general practitioners could make an informed evaluation. I do not believe that any justice of the peace or police officer has had the training to make that type of assessment. I also submit, based on those I've had an opportunity to talk to, that they do not want that responsibility to make the determination that a person they encounter would benefit from confinement in a psychiatric institution.

The Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario division, has stated: "Our organization has grave concerns about the amendments to the Mental Health Act proposed in Bill 111; in particular, the removal of the word `imminent' and the addition of a third criterion to each of the sections mentioned." They talk about both of those things being a serious deprivation of a person's liberty.

There's no question that we have a very difficult issue we're dealing with. Unlike the member opposite in the third party, I do not have any firsthand experience with persons suffering from schizophrenia, but I know from other experiences that it is a very difficult issue.

What we are dealing with here is the balance between protecting somebody's rights, the rights of individuals to make their own decisions, as opposed to allowing a knowledgeable person to intercede or interfere in the best interests of the person who is temporarily unable to make their own decisions. If the current Mental Health Act has a failing, it certainly errs in favour of a person's individual rights.

If we decide to give expanded rights to complete strangers over somebody just because they're suffering from mental illness, we start down one of those famous slippery slopes, those slippery slopes that the official opposition are so much inclined to accuse us of starting down. I don't believe we should start down that slippery slope. I do believe we need to assess this whole area. I don't think these amendments to the Mental Health Act are the place to start.

I think there are basic flaws in here and I'm appalled that we would say to complete strangers, with no training, that they have the ability now to make a determination that somebody would benefit from being confined to a mental institution, to a psychiatric institution. I can't imagine that we would want to start walking down that road.

Based on that, I believe the amendments proposed in this piece of legislation are not in keeping with what we believe as legislators. I don't believe they're in the best interests of the average person. I don't believe it is the place to start further discussions on this issue, and because of those reasons I will be voting against this particular bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's always an interesting opportunity to participate in what is private members' hour where ordinarily the political considerations, the partisan considerations, are pushed aside and members look at these matters in an independent way.

This is a very difficult issue to deal with. There's no question about it. There are significantly good arguments to be made on both sides of the general issue of who shall be in charge of determining whether a person requires psychiatric treatment and whether that treatment should be on a voluntary basis or on a compulsory basis.

Years ago the rights of psychiatric patients were clearly placed in legislation. In fact, the legislation was liberalized rather considerably over the years because of significant pressure which was placed on governments, which recognized that the rights of psychiatric patients years ago were not very great, did not predominate.

The pendulum swung considerably, if you will, to the left on this issue -- I don't know whether you can say "to the left" -- but towards liberalization and more rights for those individuals, to a point where there are many now in our society who are absolutely beside themselves when they see members of the family or friends or others in society who are genuinely hurt by the fact that they're not receiving psychiatric services and they're not going, of their own volition, to seek those services.

Those amendments to the Mental Health Act were made in good faith over the years. I wasn't always in favour, I might say, of some of those changes that were made, but I recognized they were in good faith and I recognized that there was a problem.

The support services that are there for schizophrenics in our society are clearly inadequate. I think it's safe to say -- and while some may misinterpret this, I do not mean it in a partisan sense; I mean it only in terms of what the government's general thrust is -- it's unlikely this government is going to place a lot of money or a lot of funding in additional services for schizophrenics. That is not what you're about, that's not what you were elected for. I'm not being at this point critical of that, but I think it's unlikely that's going to happen. You look at other alternatives then, as you people will in so many areas look to other alternatives which are not of a funding nature.

I think the member is reacting to many cases that are brought to our attention. I know people who have contacted my constituency office over the past 20 years and who have problems with members of the family. I know one woman who said her daughter would be dead within two years, and her daughter was dead within two years. I'm going to tell you, it was very frustrating not to be able to do anything about it, not to be able to require treatment for this daughter who clearly was damaging her own health, mental and physical, and was heading in a direction where eventually she would be dead.

This woman pleaded with not only members of the Legislature and the federal Parliament but local people and the news media and so on. And there was the prediction. It was sad to see that prediction come true. That's what's facing these families. They don't hate the people in the family; they feel for those people.

Yes, they can be a disruptive force for an entire family. They can be, if you want, a nuisance to certain people in the family, and I know that's where some people would be a bit reluctant about this bill. But really, for the most part, I think overwhelmingly, it is for the mental health of those patients that the family feels and that others in society feel.

I'm glad the member has brought this forward. This is an issue that needs discussion. I would hope it would go to a committee and the concerns expressed by members would be voiced there. If any amendments or changes to the proposal are required, I think they can be done in the committee.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Excuse me. There are too many conversations. If you need a meeting, please remove yourselves from the chamber. It's disruptive to the Speaker, it's disruptive to the debater. We all want to hear the member for St Catharines's comments.

Mr Bradley: I simply appeal to the members to have this issue dealt with, because it has been brought to our attention so many times. There are people who are very much afraid of certain members of their family or friends who have psychiatric problems that could be of a violent nature. They are afraid because they could do damage to themselves, because they won't take their medication, because they won't seek the treatment that they require. I think this initiative allows us to deal with this issue in a very serious way, and for that reason I hope the Legislature will agree to have this bill go forward to the justice committee for further discussion.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to comment briefly on the private member's bill that's before the House this morning. I've had many people come into my office raising this concern and I'm very pleased to see today that the issue is being raised. Maybe some members do not agree with the wording of the legislation, but the intent of what is being proposed is something we should be considering.

When I have people come to my office who have a family member and they really don't know what to do or how to handle them, it gives you great concern. I think that we have the opportunity to say a few words to put something in for the people, to bring this issue to light for some of these families that do need the help and assistance.

When I look at some of the categories within the bill and the ability to commit individuals to psychiatric facilities, how they do that, what the outcome of that will be and who's going to monitor it, it is a concern to us all. I think the availability is here today for some of us to say just briefly about the bill that's before us and I'm glad that the member has brought it forth for discussion.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has two minutes to respond.

Mr Patten: I want to acknowledge first off the points made by all the members, the members for Carleton East and St Catharines in our party, the members for Cochrane South and London Centre and also for Huron, Chatham-Kent and Simcoe East.

I know this is an extremely sensitive issue. I also know there are many people who are suffering, many families that are suffering at this stage because they cannot get treatment. My sole intent with this bill is not to loosen the criteria, as the member for London Centre said; not at all. It does not add any new rights for anybody. It does not deal with police detention. That's a completely different issue. Police detention is another issue. Nothing has been changed in the procedures of how people are brought to a psychiatric facility. It's an attempt to enable, appropriately, to have criteria that address and come into focus with so many people who need treatment.

I would be the first to rise up and yell from the rafters if people's human rights were denied under something that I looked at and proposed. I would never want to do that. I pride myself on having fought many times for people's rights. I also think there's a right to treatment. We have many ill people, and one of the unique functions of that illness is that they do not recognize their need. It's not like a cancer patient; it's not like somebody who has diabetes. As soon as they have that disease, they know they need treatment and they welcome the opportunity to be treated in a facility or in a hospital or whatever is appropriate.

But I say to you that this is a very tough thing for many families. I am prepared to say I don't care what the drafting is; what I care about is, can we help those people out there now? While in some institutions they cannot get in immediately, I am told there still is some capacity. I have checked this out -- I wouldn't do this lightly -- and there is some capacity for treatment. In fact, the earlier we can treat people who really need it, the greater the likelihood that the treatment will be much shorter. The longer the duration of psychosis that goes on, especially for schizophrenics, the more difficult it is to treat and the longer it takes.

You have people now who pass the test because they're dangerous. Imagine living with a dangerous person in your family, or your neighbour or your partner in business or whatever it may be. It's a terrible thing. It's terrible for the individual who needs treatment and it's terrible for their family, their friends or their colleagues.

I say to you, whatever the wording should be, yes, I see adding a feature to appropriately allow us to treat people who need it. There will be many people who won't pass the test. It does not change the process or deny rights. It simply says it enables people to see that somebody indeed has deteriorated, and they take that person to a psych hospital for assessment. Sometimes, as happens now, they're not accepted, and I imagine in the future, if they do not pass the test, they would not be accepted. Not only that, checks and balances of the review board are very stringent.

I have case after case of people who have come forward and said, "I could have helped that individual, but I couldn't make the case that they were immediately dangerous to someone else, and because of that they didn't get the treatment." Then two months later they harm someone else, and I guess there is the proof in the pudding that that person needed that kind of support.

The importance of earlier treatment -- and this is not a licence, it's not a slippery slope. I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, there are no new rights in this. If I follow the logic of your particular argument, then the doctors, the justices of the peace and the police should not even be in the picture.

I'd like to identify a reference in a letter from Dr Heather Milliken, a psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa hospital, asking for an opinion related to this particular bill dealing with the importance of earlier treatment and the outcomes. She says: "The evidence is based on studies" --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

VOICE MAIL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I move private member's notice of motion number 37:

That in the opinion of this House, the Common Sense Revolution is promoting practical ideas for improving efficiency and making government work better for the people it serves; therefore the House strongly urges the government of Ontario to support the removal of voice mail from every provincial government telephone paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr Murdoch: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on this resolution. As you know, the 20th century is about to come to a close. The 20th century will be remembered for many of its advancements in technology that have made life easier and more enjoyable for all of us: inventions like the vehicle, the television, the computer and the telephone, just to name a few. But before we move ahead into the 21st century, I think it's necessary to take another look at the telephone.

Since its introduction, business people, politicians, friends and family have enjoyed the ability to talk to each other at the touch of a dial, and from almost anywhere in the world.

In the past, if you wanted to talk to someone in a provincial government office, you simply dialled the number. The receptionist would answer your call and direct you to the person you wanted to talk to. If that person wasn't in the office, the receptionist would take down a message and give it to that person when they returned, and they could phone you back.

However, this has all changed. A few years ago someone, who probably thought they were contributing to the advancement of the telephone, introduced the invention called voice mail. At the time the inventor probably thought he or she was doing a good thing. In fact, what they introduced was the death of telephone communications as we knew it.

Nowadays, if you want to get hold of someone in a provincial government office you dial a number and many things can happen.

First, you can be put into a telephone directory where the cold voice of a computer lists a number of confusing options. You are instructed to pick one of the options and press the corresponding number. If you miss one of the options, you have to wait until they are repeated. If the list of options doesn't include your question or concern, you have the option of blindly hitting a number and pleading your case with anyone who may answer.

Second, if you're lucky enough to reach the right person but they aren't at their phone or are on the phone, you're thrown into the voice mail system again. You're left with a choice of leaving a message that may never be answered or hanging up and calling again.

These are just two of the examples that I'm sure a number of legislators and their constituents are familiar with. The voice mail system is not designed to benefit the caller. It is designed to benefit the end user.

Let me just say that I am not totally against voice mail. I do use it after hours in my office. But during the day people deserve to speak to a human being. This is a policy in my office.

The resolution I have put forward is a lot different than my original resolution. The original draft was watered down so much that those who know me may have thought I was losing my touch. I have therefore decided to include the meat of my resolution in the form of another of the 20th century's greatest inventions, a top 10 list. Therefore, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill Murdoch's top 10 reasons why the provincial government should pull the plug on voice mail:

(10) Rural and northern Ontario residents get whacked with long-distance charges every time they call Queen's Park. That's not fair.

(9) Voice mail promotes laziness. Even the most dedicated provincial employee is tempted to let a caller disappear into the voice mail abyss.

(8) If you are calling from a pay phone and get a voice mail you can kiss your quarter goodbye.

(7) After reports of my intention to recommend scrapping voice mail from all provincial government phones, my office was flooded with calls of support, all of which were politely answered by my staff and not a machine.

(6) A phone call to a provincial government office is a call to action, not a voice audition.

(5) Voice mail will change the course of history. Stevie Wonder will have to change the name of his Valentine's favourite to "I just called to say I love you, but I got your voice mail so we're through."

Viewers will be outraged when Steven Spielberg's re-releases ET because the poor little fellow phones home and gets voice mail, leaving him on earth to be dissected by evil scientists.

(4) If you have enough patience to listen to the message and press the right button, you may be told, "Sorry, mailbox full, please call again later."

(3) It's a big, fat waste of money. We will still have receptionists to answer the phone when callers hit zero.

(2) In the Common Sense Revolution the government promised practical ideas for making the government work better for the people it serves. Getting rid of voice mail would be a step in the right direction.

And the number one reason why the provincial government should pull the plug on voice mail:

(1) The taxpayers of Ontario pay the salaries of all provincial civil servants, elected officials and their staff and therefore deserve to talk to a living, breathing human being when phoning a government office and not a machine.

For these reasons and many others, I'm strongly urging the House to support the removal of voice mail from every provincial government telephone paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. The taxpayers are our customers and it's our job to listen. I don't know how anybody could disagree with this simple concept.

Voice mail should be left behind on the scrap heap of useless 20th-century inventions like the Rubik's cube, new Coke and spray-on hair. This is not a political issue. It's a matter of common sense. Let's get rid of voice mail before it's too late.

As a young boy growing up in Grey county, I was taught that if someone was taking the time to ask you a question, it is only polite to answer them right away. This simple lesson should be applied to the telephone. If the phone rings, answer it. Don't hide behind the wall of voice mail.

I look forward to hearing from the rest of my colleagues in the House talking about this but I see I still have three minutes and my notes have run out, so I can talk about why I'm so irritated. It's annoying and we don't need this voice mail. That's why we have receptionists. I don't believe there's a ministry in this House that doesn't have a receptionist working for them. As I said before, in my office we don't have voice mail. If you ring my office and all my staff are on the phones, it will bounce to the receptionist at northern development and mines. She will take a message and make sure that my people get the message and hope that they will phone.

If you aren't fortunate enough to have a ministry to answer it, we do have in all our offices --

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We don't have that option.

Mr Murdoch: I understand that I'm hearing from some of my colleagues across the floor that they don't, but they do have a caucus office. I have been in your caucus office and you should have your phones bounced back to that caucus office. When we were in opposition, that's what happened in our offices. We didn't need the voice mail.

I was irritated about this but I hadn't decided to do something until one day I was sitting in a staff office, staff working for our party, not for me but for our party, and we were talking about -- I don't know what it was now we were talking about but it didn't matter, it was irrelevant. The phone rang and I said, "Aren't you going to answer the phone?" and they said, "No, no, voice mail will get it," and that bugged me. That's what happened and I decided then that we had to do something about that, because that person on the other line wanted an answer, they didn't want some voice mail, something that wouldn't answer.

Not only in the province do we need to get rid of it but I think businesses should get rid of it. I can tell you right now, Mr Speaker, that my radio station in Owen Sound probably has one of the worst voice mails I've ever heard. If you try to get a reporter on the weekend, the first thing you get when you ring in, they say, "If you know the number of reporter, please dial." How are you supposed to know all their numbers? Then they tell you to spell their name, and I want to tell you now, there we get into trouble.

Interjection: Then you are in trouble.

Mr Murdoch: Then we are in trouble, that's right. First of all, if you don't have your glasses on, you can't read the numbers on the dial to find where they are. Second, you have to make sure you know how to spell and not everybody can do that. Curling would be an easy name, or Smith, but you could get some names -- so when you start to spell the name, you get the voice mail back saying: "Sir, you obviously don't understand the system. Maybe you should hang up and try again." I'm telling you, business should be looking at this.

I know if I was ordering something and I got voice mail, I certainly would be hanging up and going to a company that didn't use voice mail because it would be much more personal.

As I said, I'm going to look forward to hearing what the rest of my colleagues have to say and I hope you can support me in this bill.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I will now add the seriousness to this resolution. Mr Murdoch's resolution gives me an opportunity to talk about my concerns about how our commitment to public service has deteriorated. Our colleague's resolution also gives us the chance to debate whether the technologies we've adopted really serve the public.

I think everyone would agree that automated phone systems have become an annoyance.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like order in the House. Mr Morin has the floor and the rest of the conversations will have to move outside.

Mr Morin: Would you start the clock again, Mr Speaker? I'd just like to tell my colleague Mr Murdoch from the riding of Grey-Owen Sound that there is a serious aspect about your resolution and I'd like to speak to it.

I think everyone would agree that automated phone systems have become an annoyance. Something that was supposed to simplify our lives has instead created a science fiction nightmare of a depopulated planet controlled by robots.

Maybe I am exaggerating, but it certainly is true that calling any business or government office has become an obstacle course of multiple choices, none of which are quite right for your purposes. A warm hello and a straightforward answer are the exception rather than the rule these days. We are trimming down government operations in the name of efficiency. But what about effectiveness? Is saving money the only vision that guides your actions? Or is public service still something we can be proud to stand behind?

Although automated answering systems are an annoyance for everyone, they are especially an issue for seniors and other vulnerable people, like some in the disabled community. For people who were not raised with technology or those who are frustrated by complexities, there is much that is confusing and offputting when getting the runaround from a machine. Many simply give up.

I think we need to remember that regardless of economics, certain principles and basic rights apply, and these rights and principles are non-negotiable. We are in office by the grace of our electors, but our responsibility is to serve all the people of Ontario. Regardless of their situation, each of them has the right to a direct relationship with their government in whatever form serves them best.

I believe that politicians and bureaucrats are criticized in exact proportion to their indifference to the constituents they come in contact with. On each occasion that we in the public service treat a constituent with respect and courtesy, we improve the reputation of government as a whole.

As a former minister for seniors, I met with many wonderful and challenging and, yes, demanding seniors. As a minister without portfolio, I had little in the way of money to offer towards these projects. Nevertheless, they appreciated the interest, and I and others in my position showed to their concerns a great interest. My experience proved to me how important it is that the lines of communication remain open, both with interest groups and with individuals.

To raise a side issue but still a relevant one, it is my opinion that the previous government's decision to disband the office for seniors' issues was a real mistake. Advocacy is a big part of our work, but to really understand people's concerns, you have to get close to them and the office gave the signal that the government was listening. In its time the ministry, the 1-800 line, was receiving 15,000 calls a year and each call was dealt with personally.

Whatever reorganized system we finally end up with, we must be careful not to create a Fortress Ontario to defend us against the very people we are meant to serve. To understand things we've never experienced is almost impossible; to not even try is inexcusable.

The office for seniors issues offered a program that was incredibly valuable called Through Other Eyes. It allowed participants to experience at first hand some of the disabilities that seniors and others must live with every day. I must tell you going through the experience really opened my eyes. The frustrations of having to deal with your own limitations and then adding the frustration of dealing with a convoluted government information system would drive you right round the bend.

Listen to this: There was an idea a few years ago to simplify the organization of the blue pages so that people looking for government information could more easily find it: a simple idea, a good idea. The idea was killed because there was a fear that we wouldn't be able to meet the demand, that too many people would now know where to find us. What a thought.

This government is determined to see us as a business. Whether that approach is correct or not continues to be debated. However, if we accept the basic premise and conduct the business of government in a businesslike fashion, we must pay attention to customer service, and as one financial services giant says, "One customer at a time."

Mr Murdoch's resolution deserves our support as a way to let the people of Ontario know that the government of Ontario is open for business, and that means their business, once again.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this motion, but I want to put it out for the record: I am not a Luddite. I need to put that clearly on the record. I think I'm known as the technological guy of the caucus who drives his staff crazy at all hours of the day and night with e-mail messages and all kinds of fancy-dancy little things that we can do on computers, but I've got to say that I agree with the member.

The big issue here is that often, not only within government but within the private sector, incoming lines where the public is trying to get hold of somebody for a particular service are greeted by a voice mail system. I'll just give you the example of a couple of situations I've had to experience over the last little while.

A constituent called me, I guess some time in January, and said, "I was trying to get hold of somebody in the Ministry of Education." It was a fairly serious complaint. The system they had there was not only voice mail; it was like a call-screening system so that when you call up the individual it says, "Who do you want to speak to?" and you press the particular number -- they give you a directory -- so you get to the person responsible for the particular complaint. Then when you get there you're supposed to leave a little message saying who you are and what your complaint is about.

This poor individual would call, I believe it was the Ministry of Education, and say, "I'm calling about this particular thing," and from the tone of his voice the person at the end figured out that this person obviously was somewhat upset. Needless to say, nobody ever answered the phone. Finally, what this guy did was, I said, "Call them up and say you're calling to congratulate them on a wonderful initiative," and bang, the phone was picked up right away. That's how they got on that one. So I've got to agree that sometimes those phone systems are used for the darndest things.

The other one I had was about two or three weeks ago, and this one drove me crazy. I was up in Timmins and there's a 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock flight on Monday mornings back into Toronto from Timmins. I was booked on the 10 o'clock and my constituency appointment was running later than normal; a particular individual had a problem. I needed to call in to Air Ontario to rebook my time so I could go back out at 11.

They've just introduced this system where you call in and they say, "Welcome to Air Ontario; your call is important to us," and they went on to give me about 27 different choices of what I had to press to get what I wanted. By the time I actually figured out all the buttons I needed to press because the whole rigamarole was quite incomprehensible, I missed my flight. No kidding.

It took me 15 minutes to work my way through that one and one of them was, "If you know the flight you're on, please press in the flight number." Well, who knows what flight number they're on? You've got an open ticket is how we travel. I had to listen to all the different cities coming up and all the different times -- I'm telling you, it was more complicated than it needed to be. I ended up coming here at 2 instead of 11 o'clock.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I wish this motion could go further than just the government. We need to get into the private sector and give them a little bit of common sense. My God, some of that voice mail system is something. I think one of the worst ones I had --

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): You used the words "common sense."

Mr Bisson: They need a bit of common sense in the private sector, I'll tell you. The one I had that I thought was really ironic was the company I had that did the servicing of my computer network. I finally don't deal with them any more because I got so frustrated with their voice mail system.

One day we were having a printing problem. I called up and the voice mail said: "If you know the type of problem you have, please press one of the following options. If you have a networking problem, press 1. If you have a printing-faxing problem, press 2. If you have a computer problem, press 3." Was the printing problem because of the printer, the computer or the networking? I figured it was the printer and I'd press printer. I finally got to that and he says, "Oh, no, you've got to get the networking guy." Needless to say, they're not around any more. I thought it was kind of weird anyway for a computer company to be doing that.

I say to the member for Grey-Owen Sound, I support generally the motion you're bringing forward. I only want to put this one caveat. I think voice mail is a good tool, if properly used. I think voice mail is fine for within the bureaucracy. If I'm trying to get hold of your private line, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, and you're not around and I want to leave some detailed message, I would still like to have the ability to call up the member for Grey-Owen Sound, his own personal, private voice mail system, where I can say: "Hey, Bill, something's going on and here are the details. Would you get back to me."

Often staff are very pressed these days because there's very little of them around. For them to be able to get the information correctly to the individual sometimes is a problem. Voice mail is a useful tool if properly used, but I certainly suggest that the member's going in the right direction in saying we should eliminate voice mail from the face of the public. The interface between the public and the civil service, and the public and businesses should be: We reach a receptionist or we reach whoever the person is who is responsible, to take our inquiry. There's nothing more frustrating.

Did you ever try to call the family support plan line? That one takes the cake. Anybody got the number? We'll print it. If you want to see something that's in total disarray, never mind the system, call that number, that constituency help number they give us -- unbelievable. I've got constituents, I bet you have the same, who literally, for days, sit by the phone and ring and ring and keep on calling. They never get through.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): If you try to go in person, they bust you.

Mr Bisson: If you try to go in person, the Attorney General says, "I'm going to give you a charge of common assault." Maybe Peter should have been using the voice mail. It's quite the thing and I've literally got, as I'm sure you all do as members of this assembly, constituents who are trying to find out what's happened to their cheque from three months ago that they didn't get. They've got no money from the family support plan for the last three or four months. They're at their wits' end because they can't pay their bills and here they are trying to call into the system and they can't even get the stupid voice mail to activate itself because it never answers at the other end.

If you're going to start this, I hope the very first place we take the voice mail off is the family support plan lines. We need to put some human beings at the end of those ones.

I would just say, in the final minute I have -- because I know the member for Welland-Thorold, who has lots of experience with the family support lines, would like to speak to this issue -- that one of the realities is this government has laid off many employees within the civil service. I hope, if you're talking about getting rid of the voice mail system, it's going to mean we will have the bodies there to be able to answer those particular lines.

One of the reasons we're using voice mail is because there's not enough staff within the civil service. The government is trying to make itself more efficient, so the government tells us, because I've inquired about this before, and one of the ways it did that was lay off a whole bunch of people and it's using voice mail systems in a vengeance. The reality is that one of the reasons we have all this voice mail is the government has laid off most of the staff, in some ministries over 50% of the staff, like MNR and MTO; there are a lot fewer employees there to deal with inquiries.

The other thing I would say to the member for Grey-Owen Sound in closing is simply this: I really appreciate when I see a member on the other side decide to be a little bit the maverick within his own caucus, but I think, Bill, you've got to come out of the closet, you've got to go a little bit further. It's one thing to come forward with this motion to draw attention to an issue that's a thorn in the side, but we're looking for your support, Bill. This side of the House and the opposition is looking for your support in being the maverick you truly are on a number of particular pieces of legislation that I know for a fact you don't support. I hope to hear a little bit more about that later.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I rise in my capacity as skunk at the garden party to give the Management Board point of view on this matter.

Interjections.

Mr Bob Wood: Being encouraged by this response, I'll sit down right now.

The Management Board agrees with the complaints that have been offered by members from all sides of the House, but we see the solution as not being to get rid of the technology, but to make the technology serve the people. We would like to point out that voice mail is essential to the productivity and cost-savings that the voters have made clear they expect us to deliver, along with good customer service.

We currently have over 25,000 voice mail boxes, used by individual government staff. Using voice mail, a typical government office with 200 staff and four receptionists could save more than $100,000 or 80% on message-taking costs. The cost of voice mail at $8 per line is only a small fraction of the cost of full-time receptionists, who often earn more than $30,000 a year plus benefits at the Ontario public service rates.

While voice mail is occasionally a nuisance, it can also reduce the cost of phone tag by allowing for detailed messages and responses, rather than second- and third-hand messages that can easily be garbled in transmission. There are also more than 400 audio text information mailboxes which provide prerecorded program information. Most of these provide toll-free service for long-distance callers. Technology also allows for the renewal over the phone of thousands of routine transactions and licences, saving taxpayers time and money.

The biggest criticism often made of automated communication systems is that they don't always have the kinds of human backup systems that may be necessary when our constituents' inquiries don't fit into a particular bureaucratic pigeonhole. Government is committed to improving its communication systems and, wherever possible, to ensuring there is a real, live human being available to back up the system when various forms of automation will not provide adequate service. In short, the Management Board believes, "If you can't fight 'em, join 'em."

The answer to the very legitimate concerns of the member for Grey-Owen Sound and others is to make voice mail work for the people. We understand that a good number of members may well vote for this resolution in frustration. We personally do not support it because we feel the answer is to make the system work for the people rather than getting rid of a system that can do a lot of good for all. We can provide better service at less cost, and surely that's the bottom line.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): The member for London South sounds to me like a voice mail from Management Board.

With regard to the private member's bill, the resolution that my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound has put forward, I just want to say to him, let's get to the root of it. Cutbacks hurt ordinary people, and the basis of it all is that maybe it is not voice mail that's causing the problem, but the cutbacks that are happening. I had hoped, of course, as they say, the maverick that he is, that he would come forward today with a resolution talking about the hospital cuts that are happening right in his riding, that are causing havoc in his own area.

In my constituency office in Scarborough North, I get about three or four calls per day, and sometimes I average about 20 calls, complaining about voice mail: that no one answers it, or leaving messages that are not returned. My colleague just mentioned the family support plan, now known as the Family Responsibility Office, that does not respond to anything anyhow; either the phone is busy, as he said, or, if you actually get through to a voice mail and are able to leave a message, no one returns the call. The bottom line is there is no one there to return the call. Cutbacks hurt.

The Trillium drug plan is another complaint I get. One constituent called to say that a number was busy so he used the Bell call return service, at a cost to him of about 50 cents to use it. You get that when the line is available. When he eventually got through, he went through the automated messages, but when he finally had the chance to transfer to an operator, the line was disconnected. Again, it doesn't work.

OSAP: that's the one that really floors you. These calls are about $2, as they are 1-900 numbers. That's $2 a shot. These are students who have been having cutbacks because of this government not putting enough money in education, so some students maybe go broke just trying to get through to OSAP. Eventually, when they get the money, I'm sure the money they get from OSAP will be paid towards Bell Canada for the $2 call.

MTHA, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority: Forget that. They only answer the phone between 8:30 and 10, so the phone is always busy. When you get through, you get a call that tells you that the time you can call is between 8:30 and 10; the voice mail tells you that also. You get in touch with no one, no one whatsoever, because the voice mail is the one that blocks you.

The welfare office: Generally the voice mail service and the bureaucracy actually completely ignores people. Just try to get through to the welfare office. I haven't got the privilege like the member for Grey-Owen Sound, who flips his calls over to northern development, to the ministry. I would like to flip my calls over to colleges and universities and let some of those bureaucrats answer it, but again, they're cutting back on the bureaucrats.

The root of the problem is cutbacks, because as the voice mail from London South stated -- sorry, the member for London South stated -- basically the bottom line is the thing we should deal with. Forget about people; let's save some money. As a matter of fact, I am asking all the people from Scarborough North if they could move out of there so it could be easier for me to deal with people, because this government feels that is the best way to run a government: without people.

Mr Kormos: Bill Murdoch, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, has from time to time revealed himself to be a voice in the wilderness, in that vast Tory backbench wilderness, as he does today in raising this issue of voice mail. It was several weeks ago when the member approached me with his concept for this resolution and I said, "Billy, I'm with you." Because I thought, here we are, we've got a Tory backbencher prepared to drive a stake in the heart of this vampire of a government. But he tempers his resolution, because he's currying favour now. On the one hand, he wants to be a maverick, and I understand that.

There's great pride to be had from standing up and speaking out, as Bill Murdoch has from time to time. I'm going to support this resolution because I told him I was and because the thrust of the resolution is sound. But he prefaces it by actually suggesting that the Common Sense Revolution is promoting practical ideas for improving efficiency and making government work better.

Billy, you didn't say that to the Minister of Education when he was fouling up the educational system up in Grey-Owen Sound, when you rejected that as anything akin to efficient or making government work better. Billy, you didn't say that when you criticized the process when they were going to shut down, and they are going to shut down, the jail up in your riding and terminate the jobs of those hardworking correctional officers, and in so many other private conversations we've had, member for Grey-Owen Sound, and we'll keep them private. I wouldn't want to jeopardize the member's stature in his caucus and in the eyes of his leader by speaking publicly about those many private conversations.

I'm proud to join with the member for Grey-Owen Sound. My colleague declared himself not to be a Luddite. I tell you, voice mail is a scam. Mr Wood here, with his defence of the ministry of government services, of Management Board, was passionate. We saw the sweat on his brow as his enthusiasm for his support of the government's position and the support of voice mail was mounting and rising, and the tone and tenor of his voice revealed in a way that might have embarrassed him a little bit the extreme passion with which he defended the government against this attack by its maverick backbencher.

I say Mr Murdoch's right. The problem is --

The Acting Speaker: I'd just like to remind the member for Welland-Thorold that it's parliamentary to refer to members by their riding names.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. You can call me Mr Kormos if you wish.

The member for Grey-Owen Sound omits comment on who's going to answer the phones. This government has destroyed the civil service in this province. They've terminated the jobs of thousands and thousands and thousands of hardworking civil servants who, yes, among other things used to answer phones and respond personally to people's problems. Mention has been made of the shutdown of eight regional offices of the family support plan and the termination of approximately 290 competent, hardworking staff people there who resolved issues when women and their kids had problems getting their FSP payments.

Mr Murdoch is right: Voice mail is an irritant. It's frustrating. Quite frankly, it's accessible only when you have push-button phones. The reality is that with the growing poverty in this province, especially among seniors, among the disabled, more and more people are going to be disinclined to pay that usurious surcharge that Bell and their mob impose for having push-button, touch-tone phones.

As well, we've got to be careful because this government has become very selective about whom it listens to. We've heard mention of the way in which callers are screened. Mention was made to me by a number of members of the public about the fact that for some people voice mail gives them an opportunity to not perhaps be screened out of the picture by a partisan receptionist. There should perhaps be an option. People should be entitled to choose whether they want to talk to a real, live person or whether they want to enjoy the anonymity of the machinery.

I'm interested in seeing how the vote breaks down on this. If Mr Murdoch's resolution passes, I expect every member of his caucus who supported it to be unending in their efforts to ensure that Premier Harris and his cabinet -- the real test here is not whether the resolution passes, but whether Mike Harris listens. Or does he, as with megacity, prefer to turn away and ignore the plea of the people and of elected representatives?

Mr Murdoch, member for Grey-Owen Sound, I wish you well in this effort. I look forward to you getting the keys to the executive washroom, along with the keys to a Chevy Impala and a driver, as you join the members of your caucus who are blessed with cabinet positions. Lord knows, you'd be one heck of an Attorney General, one in whom I'd have far more confidence than the current Attorney General. I'm going to support this resolution. I hope others do too.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to stand to participate in the resolution by Mr Murdoch, the member for Grey-Owen Sound. I'll share my time with the other members. I know I'm interfering, but I just wanted to commend the member for Grey-Owen Sound for a great speech in support of the non-use of voice mail systems.

It might be interesting if members realize that last night on the CBC Joe Schlesinger commented, and there was quite an extensive report, on the resurgence of opposition to voice mail, not just in the government, but also in the private sector.

Just one comment: I think people in government are working there to serve people, and when people call, generally, they have something they're calling about. They're usually upset or concerned or looking for a service. The last thing they need is somebody with voice mail to give them the runaround. I'll be supporting the member's resolution this morning and look forward to hearing other comments.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to this resolution put forward by the independent-thinking member for Grey-Owen Sound. I find that this resolution is very interesting, if not curious, primarily because of its wording and the conundrum it creates. The conundrum lies in the fact that this resolution should really be split into two: one which I find very compelling and the other which I find quite offensive.

The

section which I can't support in principle or in intent, or any other way, is the

section which claims, "That in the opinion of this House, the Common Sense Revolution is promoting practical ideas for improving efficiency and making government work better for the people it serves." Tell that to the mothers and children who continue to suffer through the family support plan. Tell that to those people who are waiting for heart surgery, who are trying to get a bed so that they can be serviced properly with a health care system that cares.

Tell that to the students who are in the gallery today or the students in Grey-Owen Sound who are concerned about their education. In fact, the member is quite concerned about their education as well. Tell that to the people in Sudbury or in Grey-Owen Sound who have found that their hospitals have been closed. Tell that to the people who are occupying the presidents' offices at the University of Toronto and York. Tell them that this is a government that is promoting better ideas for better service.

That's only one side of the coin. The other side is that there is of course very good reason for supporting this resolution, that is, the

section that proposes to remove voice mail from every provincial government telephone paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario: This would give the government the chance to restore some of the many public service jobs which it cut in the past year and a half.

If we could get rid of voice mail, then perhaps we could restore some of the people to the family support plan offices in Sudbury and the other seven regions that were closed. As a result, the women and children of my community and all over Ontario could finally get some answers when they try to call the ministry and could actually start receiving their money.

We could also restore some of the citizens in other ministries, citizens who, when they had their jobs, were taxpayers, contributing to provincial programs as well as strengthening local businesses and local economies as they spent their earnings, instead of being targeted as surplus or redundant by this government.

We could restore some of the 83 individuals cut from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines whom the independent-thinking parliamentary assistant is so concerned about; or the whopping 1,820 people who have lost their jobs in the Ministry of Environment and Energy; cuts which have left these ministries without strategies or directions, which have abandoned the north and the rest of Ontario and left future generations to deal with the outcomes of this lost investment.

If getting rid of voice mail in government means putting people back to work and is a means of ending the government's automated, churned-out, push-button approach to governing, which shows no regard for the real citizens of this province and the real effects that cutbacks are having on their lives, then please let's get rid of voice mail. Let's start listening to Ontarians and let's start hearing the many ways that programs this government is doing, this group of 82, are hurting the people of Ontario, are out of touch with the people of Ontario.

The independent-thinking member for Grey-Owen Sound will have my support on this resolution because I know he's independent enough to know that he wants jobs restored. He doesn't follow the government line: the Common Sense Revolution. He wants, as we in the opposition want, an Ontario that cares for Ontarians, an Ontario that has compassion, that has fairness, that has balance, that has justice.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak on my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound's resolution, which directs the government to remove voice mail from every provincial government telephone paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. I personally thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound for finally voicing the thoughts and grumblings echoed quietly in the hollowed halls of government offices and constituents' homes.

I have heard the telephone receivers in my offices being slammed firmly into their cradles, followed by impolite words of disappointment from my staff members when they call government offices. In the process of performing their required job tasks, my staff often find themselves needing assistance from a ministry office only to find they're halted by a recorded telephone message saying the person being called is unable to take the call at this time. The message never says at what time they will be able to take the call.

Following the procedure of leaving a voice mail can feel like sending a message into the outer realms of the universe. The response time to this electronic communication usually tends to confirm this out-of-Earth experience.

Not only do I and my staff find voice mail an annoyance, but we also receive many complaints from constituents who hit the so-called brick wall of communication when they phone a government office. We did promise to cut the red tape in our 1995 campaign and we did promise a smaller government. Those promises we are actively now working on. I'm just wondering if in our zest to cut the red tape we may have cut the communication lines under the tape and if in our zest for a smaller government we have shrunk the mantle of service to the people of Ontario.

The taxpayers of this province are paying for a service, and I use the word "service" cautiously, which offers little or no service at all. The only people voice mail services are the people who use the telephone system to screen their calls. Voice mail can be a useful tool in allowing someone to leave a message after hours. Unfortunately, it is not being used as intended. Instead of being used as an instrument of assistance, it is being used to block access to assistance.

Just this week, my staff member called seven numbers in a ministry office, and of those seven numbers she never did get anybody to talk to, only voice mail. We find that unacceptable, the constituents find it unacceptable and that's why I believe this resolution is before us today. I think you could call the workers in that office selective in who they wanted to talk to. They misuse the voice mail to select the job they feel like doing.

This work habit is neither practical nor efficient. It is certainly not making government work better for the people it serves. Perhaps in this age of technology and communication which allows us to view Jupiter and talk to space travellers we have lost touch with our own government office community and the constituents we work for. There's nothing any more inconvenient than calling and getting voice mail.

I'll give you an experience that I had in my own riding. The private sector should be made aware of this and I understand that there are some in the private sector who have done away with voice mail and their business has substantially increased because of that. I had the occasion on a Saturday morning -- I'm not sure what I wanted -- to phone a business to find out if they had the product I was looking for. I got voice mail. I phoned another business. Somebody answered the phone and I asked them if they had what I was wanting. They had it and I went and purchased the product at that store.

So I say to those businesses that have voice mail, if you think it's to your advantage, I'm telling you today it's to your disadvantage.

The problems we have in government, when my staff call to try and solve complaints, it doesn't matter what ministry it is, they seem to be getting the same voice mail. I say to you today, to those people in those offices, that voice mail is there for a purpose. It will never be done away with, in my opinion, but I think that you've got to accept that we've got to make it work a lot better. I do not have voice mail in any of the three offices I have. When you phone my offices, you get to talk to an individual. That's the way I want it and that's the way my constituents want it.

It's confusing, and to us we find it unacceptable, to call a ministry office and continually not get to speak to the individual we want. As I said, earlier this week one of my staff called a ministry office, seven different lines, and got a voice mail on every one. The people of this province do not accept that; neither do I. I commend the member for Grey-Owen Sound for bringing this resolution forward today.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I support the resolution to remove voice mail from provincial government phones. Voice mail is the bureaucrat's best weapon in the battle against public service: voice mail, the inhuman response to citizens with problems; voice mail, not the efficient administrative procedure but a bureaucratic put-off and put-down to those in need. The proliferation of voice mail in the government is a clear indication that bureaucrats are interested in anything but talking to those who pay them and whom they supposedly serve.

The use of voice mail dates back far beyond our present government. I have many constituents who require assistance from the government: single moms who have been evicted, disabled who have a question about a government program, seniors inquiring about drugs. They call me because after repeated calls to the bureaucrats all they get is voice mail. The trouble is that my office makes the same calls and gets the same voice mail. So there are half a dozen unanswered calls from my distressed constituent and probably 10 unanswered calls from my angry staff.

I am certain that these same bureaucrats claim that they are so busy because their voice mail has 16 calls. Yes, 16 calls one way, all about the same problem. I can't say that's efficient and I can't say that's customer service.

Commercial voice mail was introduced in 1980. It's a multibillion-dollar industry that has an annual growth rate of over 20%. The impersonal world of government bureaucracy has been rejuvenated by voice mail. Voice mail has become the nirvana of those who practise procrastination, doing nothing and hoping the problem will go away. Government bureaucracies are champions of index-finger development: Keep dialling, keep following those instructions and maybe you'll get through. Calling a government office is like buying a lottery ticket -- you may just win. Hope springs eternal.

Voice mail is the ultimate government bureaucratic tool. It covers for smoke breaks, arriving too late, leaving too early or those long coffee breaks. That's wrong. Bureaucrats are not doing their jobs and are hiding behind voice mail. Good government is not voice mail government. People expect an answer. People want to be treated with respect and they don't want to talk to a machine.

No one would contemplate talking to a machine to order a McDonald's hamburger. One of the biggest promoters of voice mail, Bell Telephone, has real people talking on their customer service lines. Service companies and all successful companies must provide a service and voice mail is not that.

Where would FedEx be if they used voice mail? In fact, the president of FedEx, Fred Smith, answers his own phone, and many top executives do the same to maintain contact with the people in the marketplace. Companies that service and care provide real people to talk to real people. Order a pizza, book a hotel, call a cab, call my office, you talk to real humans. Call the government and you start a voice mail journey.

North York Mayor Mel Lastman dislikes voice mail so much, he banned it in his office. He got calls from around the world, from as far away as Australia. He got overwhelming support for the idea.

Voice mail contradicts the basic rules of customer service. It treats people like nothing. It shows no respect for their time and their needs. It ignores compassion. It depersonalizes. It delays charity and help to all but the unrelenting. Voice mail's a personal attack on seniors, the young, the disabled and the most vulnerable. It has no heart, and I deplore that.

Make people responsible for their jobs. Don't trap people in voice mail jail.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'd just like to rise to compliment my good friend the member for Grey-Owen Sound on an excellent initiative designed to help push forward good government public policy, to help push forward customer service. I know there's a growing number in the public who are very concerned about this issue and I commend him for bringing forward this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound has two minutes.

Mr Murdoch: I would like to thank all the members who spoke here today in support of it: the members for Ottawa East, Cochrane South -- and we may mention something about the member for Cochrane South. He mentioned that I was a maverick. I don't know, maybe that's what he thinks, but I like to think that I'm just a member like everyone else and I bring the truth to this House that my constituents want me to bring here. Regardless of whether it's party policy or not, I represent my constituents. I just want to remind the member for Cochrane South of that.

Also, the members for Welland-Thorold, Scarborough East, Scarborough North -- Scarborough is certainly out here today helping me out -- and Simcoe East, and certainly my member for Sudbury, we have lots of good discussions. I also want to mention the member for London South. I know it was quite a speech when he mentioned that he was the skunk in the House. I do get that scent coming from you, that you weren't too interested in speaking today. I know what you have to do sometimes as a parliamentary assistant and I appreciate the fact that you're here.

I also have a letter I'd like to read into the House that was sent to me. It says: "Dear Bill: I am sorry I cannot join the voice mail debate tomorrow due to a prior commitment at my constituency office. However, I want to tell you in no uncertain terms that I strongly support your resolution. My constituents in rural eastern Ontario are increasingly fed up with what I call `voice mail hell.'" That's from Sean Conway.

It's unfortunate some other members weren't here to speak on this. But again, I want to tell you that after hours it's okay, but during working hours people have to learn to answer that phone. It needs to be answered because people out there want to talk to real people. That's the only way we can solve some of the problems and get solutions that we need to help us in these times that we're in. If they don't answer that phone, then I don't think they should be working for us. That's what the phones are there for. The phones are there for communication, not the voice mail.

I don't mind it after hours because there's no one there. At least the people know that when some voice mail comes on and says, "Sorry, these are the office hours."

I'm pleased with all the support we've had here today and hopefully the government will listen to us.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 63.

If there are any members who are against a vote at this time, they will please rise.

Mr Patten has moved second reading of Bill 111. Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I'd like to refer the bill to the justice committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is the majority of the House in favour of the member's request to send the bill to the justice committee? Is it agreed?

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing. You may take your seats. A majority of the House is in favour.

The bill stands referred to the justice committee.

VOICE MAIL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 64.

If there any members who are against taking a vote on this at this time, they will please rise.

Mr Murdoch has moved ballot item number 64. Is it the wish of the House that the resolution carry?

I declare it carried.

It being 12 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On February 3, the council of Terrace Bay passed the following resolution:

"Be it resolved that the Thunder Bay District League enter into negotiations with the province of Manitoba with a view to having northwestern Ontario become a part of Manitoba...."

In his letter of explanation, Reeve Ziegler says, "Council has become increasingly concerned about measures taken by the government of Ontario without consideration for the costs incurred by northwestern Ontario municipalities in their operations."

He goes on, "The failure of the provincial government to recognize that we have different needs...has resulted in the removal of tax dollars from our residents and communities for...necessities...removal of tax dollars from the north that have been generated from northern businesses, industries and residents."

Premier, are you not concerned that a municipality in Ontario would want to leave this great province? Could it be that the direction you and your government are going in is incorrect? Municipalities from all across the province are beginning to see what it will cost them after your dumping exercise. The reeve of Terrace Bay has pleaded with you and this government to change direction. Let's hope that the actions of Terrace Bay are not a sign of things to come in this province. Reeve Ziegler wants you to listen. Call him, please.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Speaker, as you know, we're having hearings on the abominable Bill 103,

an act to extirpate local government here in Metropolitan Toronto.

What you have noticed, no doubt, is quite a number of people who have come in front of this committee who are very passionate, who have been very effective in their presentations and very well researched and have come to tell the members of that Conservative Party sitting on the opposite side of where we're at that what this government is doing with Bill 103 is fundamentally wrong. They are giving evidence, testimony, as to why local government works best and why in altering that it would affect fundamental values that are important to them.

They have said that there has been no evidence whatsoever to suggest that getting rid of local government is the better way to go, that all the researchers who have looked at this matter have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no economic savings and that it alters fundamentally the values that people strongly support. Professor Sancton and Professor Kitchen, and Mr Cox from the US as well, state that.

The bill is fundamentally flawed and it cannot be amended or reformed. So even though M. Leach might amend that act that speaks about the power of trustees, I am not certain that is going to satisfy us, because the bill is the thing that's got to go.

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph) : Start with ice. Pebbled ice. Add brooms, stones, a skip, sweepers, and follow the action. Of course, I'm talking about curling. The noble sport of Scots was first introduced in Canada in 1760 by the 78th Fraser Highland Regiment soldiers.

Last week, the city of Guelph and the Guelph Curling Club played host to the Nokia Cup, the Ontario men's curling championship. The history of our Guelph club dates back to 1838, shortly after John Galt chopped down the first tree. Curling was played on Allan's Dam, Goldie's Dam, or wherever ice could be found.

The Nokia Cup brought together the finest curlers in Canada, names like Werenich, Howard and Middaugh, and more than 18,000 fans visited Guelph to watch these living legends play. The championship game last Sunday was exciting. Two-time world championship winner Ed Werenich played against Middaugh, and the two teams battled back and forth until Middaugh was finally overcome in the end and Werenich won 7-6.

The Nokia Cup is over, but the memories created in Guelph as the host city will last for a long time. We would like to congratulate Ed Werenich and wish him luck with his team in the Canadian Brier. We look forward to having the Nokia Cup and all the curling fans back to Guelph.

TEACHER-STAFF APPRECIATION WEEK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): An interesting missive made its appearance in the media rooms of Queen's Park today. It's a press release outlining the Minister of Education's tribute to teachers and staff in education.

February 9 to 15 is Teacher-Staff Appreciation Week in Canada. I guess the minister or somebody on his staff felt that due recognition of that fact should be made before the week is out.

The press release states, "During Teacher-Staff Appreciation Week, it's important to say `Thank you, we appreciate your service in education.'" All of us who believe in the importance of education and who understand the impact on the lives of young people of teachers and of staff in education do appreciate the work that's done and the dedication that is brought to that work.

Why is it that these words, delivered by way of a quietly dropped pro forma press release, ring so hollow coming from this minister?

Maybe it's because teachers and other staff don't believe this minister really appreciates their work and their dedication. How can teachers feel appreciated when the minister is doing his best to convince people that the system is broken, that our students are doing so badly that we have a crisis that needs radical change in response?

No wonder, as the press release says, that teachers and education staff are carrying out their work in an environment of change. How is bringing in legislation that advocates privatizing, outsourcing what other staff do, showing appreciation for educational staff?

What about the guidance teachers and the librarians and the custodial staff and the bus drivers and the teacher support staff, all of whom are targeted by this minister for cutting? Where is the appreciation for them? Actions speak louder than words.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would ask the members to keep their conversations as quiet as possible so that I can hear.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Last night I attended two meetings on megacity, one of which was in East York. Attending that meeting was Mr John Parker, who represents York East, and the Honourable Dave Johnson, who represents Don Mills. There were about 300 people in that crowd. I have to tell you that what unfolded was pretty sad.

I have attended a lot of megacity meetings now and I have seen a lot of anger and a lot of concern and a lot of the mood to fight back, but I haven't seen before what I saw last night. In this world of partisan politics you'd think I'd feel happy about it, but I don't.

I saw almost 300 people portraying hurt and a sense of betrayal time and time again, and deep anger at Mr Johnson for his role in this megacity. I think the Premier and the municipal affairs minister should be aware of what this misguided bill is doing to one of their most respected and honourable members.

Mr Johnson is a smart man. I know from listening to him that he cannot possibly believe some of the things he has to say himself about the so-called benefits of this megacity. I would ask this government, if for nobody else's sake, for one of their respected members' sake, to withdraw this bill.

ALTA WHITFIELD

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am deeply saddened to rise in the House to honour the passing of a strong community leader and a great educator from my riding last week. The late Alta Whitfield symbolized all that is good in people. Her dedication to her community, to her students, to her family will always be cherished and never forgotten by the people she touched.

Alta was a very politically active individual. She was reeve of the township of North Monaghan for five years and served as Peterborough county councillor for eight years. She also served as the president of the Peterborough Progressive Conservative Riding Association.

Alta also knew the importance of serving your community by volunteering. She was chair of the VON, she was a key person in the creation of the hospital foundation, she served on Civic Hospital's board for some 20 years and was its chair, and was very active in Knox United Church.

She graduated from Peterborough teachers' college in the 1930s. She taught a family business course at Sir Sandford Fleming College in 1978, and in 1978 was the recipient of the college's fellowship in applied education. Alta strongly believed that you were never too old to continue your education.

On behalf of myself and all of my constituents in the Peterborough riding, I send my regrets and deepest condolences to the Whitfield family.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today in the House to bring forward the issue of the closing of the Consumers Glass plant in the city of Hamilton in my riding of Hamilton East. The closing of this plant will affect 400 people. This company at one time was the largest glassmaker in the country with over 2,000 employees. As of May 7, the company will have shut its doors and 400 employees will be out of work. It is a tragedy for my community, it is a tragedy for the economy of Hamilton-Wentworth but, more important, it is a tragedy for 400 families who are going to be impacted by this loss.

It's said best by Ms Vuletic, 57 years old, one month short of her pension. She said: "Who's going to hire me at my age? My daughter's 24. She's home. She's got a college education. Who's going to hire me?" That outlines clearly the pain and suffering and difficulty that goes with a plant closure. This company over the years has struggled but has survived.

I stand today to ask the province of Ontario, the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, along with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, to arrange a meeting with the owners of the company, with the union, and to see if there is any way some government intervention somehow by this provincial government jointly with the federal government will help either spread out the layoffs or, best of all, keep this plant operating.

It's a tragedy and I'm urging the provincial government to work together with the federal government to intervene and try to help these people of Hamilton and retain the 400 jobs they're going to lose.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On January 15 I asked a question in this House of the Minister of Health. It was concerning the long waiting list for cardiac surgery in Sudbury, the place that people from my community go when they need that done. I said that in November 1995 there were 60 people on that waiting list. In November 1996 there were over 230, and that list is still growing. The minister, in response, said, "I'd be more than happy to indicate to the member opposite that I personally am taking a very active interest and I'm very concerned about this situation in Sudbury and right across the province."

Here we are, a month later, and nothing has been done. As a matter of fact, the situation gets worse. On the date that I asked the question of the minister, I talked of a loved one in the family who died. Last week two more people from Sault Ste Marie, two of my constituents, died because of the waiting list for heart surgery.

The waiting list has now gone from 230 to 250 and these people aren't dying because they have a heart that's not well. These people are dying because they're on a waiting list that is too long, that keeps them waiting too long and that creates complications and makes it really difficult for doctors to determine when a person goes from an elective surgery process to one that is of a more serious nature and on to an emergency list. Sometimes by the time they get on there they've had a number of heart attacks and they can't be cured.

Mr Speaker, will you ask the Minister of Health to look --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.

VALERIE ORR

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Each year the city of Brampton recognizes outstanding citizens in our community. The Citizen of the Year is chosen by the Brampton Guardian newspaper from nominations submitted from citizens in our community. On behalf of my colleague from Brampton South, I want to congratulate Valerie Orr, who was named the 1996 Brampton Citizen of the Year.

The long-time community volunteer and former city councillor accepted this award last night. Her more than 27 years of voluntary and community service are too numerous to mention in a minute and a half, but here are just a couple of examples:

She served on various boards from 1972 to 1985, including the YM-YWCA, and was founder of Fish the Good Neighbour program. She worked door-to-door campaigns for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Salvation Army and the Cancer Society; organized the first free clothing trade; was a volunteer librarian and tutor; worked with children's aid; coached girls' softball for 12 years; was a member of the Optimist Club, the Zonta Club, on the board of directors of DARE and St John Ambulance; and, last but not least, was responsible for saving and organizing the Canada Day celebration committee when it was cut from the city budget several years ago. She continues to serve as chair to this day.

On behalf of the province of Ontario, I congratulate Valerie Orr, a truly remarkable individual, for her hard work and dedication to the city of Brampton.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES / PAGES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

I want to wish you all the best, good luck, and in 20 years from now I want to see at least two or three of you in this House. The best of luck.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, my question --

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

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