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

May 13, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

JUNIOR HOCKEY

REST HOMES

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

ROSE OF DURHAM

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

POLICE WEEK

MOTORCYCLES

HIGHWAY SAFETY / SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

LABOUR RELATIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

LAND REGISTRATION

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

IMPAIRMENT TESTING DEVICES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

X-RAY SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES

GAMBLING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

DRIVERS' LICENCES

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Huget moved private member's notice of motion number 6:

That, in the opinion of this House,

(1) Recognizing that currently two pieces of legislation govern the delivery of social assistance in the province: the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act; and

(2) Recognizing that different legislative and regulatory requirements and different policies and guidelines have been established under each of these statutes to regulate the delivery of social assistance in the province; and

(3) Recognizing that in the existing administrative frameworks established under each of these statutes, social assistance is delivered by different levels of government; and

(4) Recognizing that the existing legislative and administrative frameworks are complex and cumbersome, and cause confusion and duplication; and

(5) Recognizing that the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation recommends in its May 1992 report entitled Time for Action that social assistance in Ontario be delivered by only one level of government and be governed by only one piece of legislation;

The government of Ontario should consider replacing the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act with one new piece of legislation governing the delivery of social assistance in the province; the new legislation should have a

preamble and a purpose clause that would state the underlying values of the administrative system and the fundamental objectives of social assistance; and

The government of Ontario should consider replacing the existing administrative frameworks with a new, unified single-tier administrative system where social assistance would be delivered by only one level of government; and

In keeping with the May 1992 first nations' project team report entitled Principal Report on New Social Assistance Legislation for First Nations in Ontario, any negotiations between the government of Ontario and the first nations on the administration and delivery of social assistance should be done in recognition of the Statement of Political Relationship signed on August 6, 1991, by the government of Ontario and first nations representatives.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): This issue is one that is of great importance to me and has been for quite some time. I have to say I was disappointed when my original time last December to present this resolution was pre-empted, but I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to seek the support of the House on this very important matter.

I'm sure many of the members in this House can identify with the frustration that comes out of the case work in their offices attempting to deal with our social assistance programs. There have been so many people in my constituency office who have been put into a state of confusion trying to deal with the bureaucratic maze of two systems.

Constituents visiting my office usually have a multitude of questions in trying to determine how they can achieve assistance in Ontario: What type of help do they need? Is it short-term or long-term? Under which act, family benefits or general welfare? Are you a single parent or a single person? Are you temporarily or permanently disabled? Are you a new entrant to the system? What office should you go to, the municipality's or the province's?

When people find themselves with no money and in a desperate situation, these questions add to their frustration at a time when the last thing people need is more frustration.

The purpose of social assistance is to help those in our society who find they're economically unable to meet their basic needs. For some who apply for assistance, it can be traumatic enough to have to ask for help in the first place. Add to this tension the fact that the administrative frameworks are complex and in themselves cause confusion and you are now looking at the nightmare faced by some applicants.

Historically, social assistance has been a municipal responsibility in Canada, but that has changed over time. Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are now the only provinces that currently have a municipal welfare system. The rest of the provinces have already moved to making it a provincial responsibility.

Currently, our province's two social assistance programs are family benefits and general welfare assistance. Family benefits provides longer-term assistance to single parents, permanently disabled persons and some seniors. That program is delivered by the province. General welfare is delivered by municipalities and is considered to be short-term assistance for single people, families headed by a couple and new entrants to the system. The benefits differ under both the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act.

But why should one act cover single parents and another act cover married couples, and why should there be a different delivery agent for those acts? In my opinion, new legislation covering all recipients is a change that makes sense to me. There would in fact be no losers if these changes were made.

As taxpayers, we will benefit from a one-tier system that will lead to less duplication of services, less fraud and less overpayment. For those who apply for and receive benefits, new legislation will create an easier, more understandable and fairer system. For those on the front line who administer benefits, a streamlined service would obviously have a positive impact on their day-to-day activities.

The call for a one-tier system has come from many sources. In Transitions, a report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, one of its recommendations was that the FBA and GWA be unified into one piece of legislation. Delivery staff, municipalities and labour have all called for the province to make a decision regarding the future delivery agent of social assistance. All three have also called for a one-tier delivery service with one delivery agent per community.

The most recent report, Time for Action, in May 1992, presented 52 recommendations to create a fairer, easier system for social assistance delivery. Recommendation number one calls for new legislation and one delivery agent, and I would have to agree that it is indeed a time for action.

One of the reasons our current systems are ineffective is their lack of statements of purpose or values. Delivery agents need a better clarification of their role and clients deserve to know what rights they have within the system. The lack of a purpose clause has also been criticized for contributing to the lack of consistent delivery service across Ontario.

Depending on how a particular office or workers see their role in the system, there continues to be considerable differences in the approach providing services. For example, some offices may volunteer information about a program while others may give information only if they're asked. The need for a purpose clause and a common set of values is clear.

Time for Action has recommended that extensive powers be given to the province to ensure that social assistance is administered according to the provisions of a new act and its principles. These powers of the province would guarantee that the system operates fairly and consistently everywhere in the province.

An example of the need for fairness is the area of special needs. Right now, people in many areas of the province do not have full access to assistance for special needs. Some municipalities fund special needs; others don't. Some will only provide part of the money for a necessary item and others provide it all. Special needs are considered to be at the option of the delivery agent. A revised system should ensure equal treatment of social assistance recipients no matter where they live.

I have noted in my resolution that these changes shall not pertain to the first nations communities. When Ontario and first nations representatives signed the Statement of Political Relationship in 1991, we recognized the inherent right of first nations to be self- governing within the framework of the Canadian Constitution.

Because aboriginal cultures are rich and complex, there are many cultural, social and political aspects unique to them that our current systems have not been able to adequately address and have in many ways been at odds with the basic values of first nations cultures. First nations themselves will have to make recommendations on the future of social assistance on reserves.

The new legislation must be consistent and understandable. However, it must also be efficient, open and publicly accountable. Delivery of social assistance must be responsive to consumers, accessible, fair, simple and open and mutually accountable. In addition, it must be coordinated with other programs and services.

I believe the elimination of the current two systems with new single-tier legislation will give us greater accountability, lower administrative costs, equity across the province and greater equity between individuals, and I seek the support of the House on this very important resolution.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to rise this morning to participate in the debate on the resolution by the member for Sarnia.

This resolution calls for the provision of one comprehensive piece of legislation and one administrative framework administered by one level of government to replace the existing general welfare and family benefits delivery system. On its face, this is a resolution which I think we can all support.

But what puzzles me and many other people who have read this resolution is why this proposal is being presented to this House as a private member's resolution by a government backbencher and not as a government bill by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

This government over the years has had ample, ample advice on this issue in the form of several major social assistance reform reports. Three of the major ones have already been mentioned: Transitions, Back on Track and Time for Action.

In March 1991, early in the life of this NDP government, the Back on Track report was released. This was the first report of the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation. This report provided strategic advice to the Minister of Community and Social Services on new social assistance legislation; March 1991. This report focused on those measures which could be achieved without legislative change as a first step.

The Back on Track report contained, as an appendix, the former minister my colleague the member for York North's statement, "Following public consultation and refinements, I will present a bill to this House in 1992." Mr Speaker, 1992 has come and gone.

On May 2, 1990, when that promise was made, the Transitions report had been received and adopted as a framework for reform, the advisory group had been named and a concrete plan of action had been adopted; May 1990. A firm time line for the introduction of new social assistance legislation had been announced and the previous government was firmly committed to the process and had demonstrated this through the budget decisions of 1989 and 1990. I think that's an important point.

In May 1992 the NDP government released another report, Time for Action, an excellent document presented by an excellent group of individuals, which was subtitled Towards a New Social Assistance System for Ontario and dealt extensively with the very concerns we are debating here this morning. This report, like Transitions, as has been mentioned by the member for Sarnia, has as its first recommendation, "New legislation should replace the existing General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act and create a unified program for all recipients of social assistance, with a single-tier delivery structure." How much more clearly can it be stated?

It goes on to say: "With the merger of the GWA and the FBA Acts into a unified system, a major overlay of complexity will be eliminated. A system divided into two administrative and program streams is inefficient and confusing."

As a matter of fact, the Time for Action report begins its first

chapter with "A Call to Action," which says, "This advisory group strongly urges the Ontario government" -- and may I remind the audience that this is the NDP government, of which this member is a backbencher -- "to move forward with new legislation that will set the system on a new course."

Finally, on January 22 of this year the then Minister of Municipal Affairs announced with great fanfare that he had reached an agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario regarding the disentanglement process. Under the terms of the draft agreement, the province would take full responsibility for 100% of general welfare assistance costs. At that moment I was cautious, and I still am.

As we all know, the government's April 23 mini-budget announcement has seriously undermined the level of trust between the municipalities of this province and this government. AMO has requested an extension of its response time as municipalities right across Ontario grapple with new and different realities of April 1993.

I ask the member for Sarnia, why are you bringing this resolution to this House today? Why is the Minister of Community and Social Services not introducing new social assistance legislation, which is at least a year overdue? I, of course, will support this resolution, and I would encourage the member for Sarnia to make his voice heard within his own caucus and to encourage the minister to bring forward real legislation, not resolutions in private members' time, to this House for consideration as soon as is physically possible.

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Before rising to talk about this resolution with regard to combining the GWA and the FBA under one piece of legislation I reminded myself of some of the history and some of the statistics involved, particularly in welfare. Having been involved in the municipal scene, having been a mayor, I see first hand, through the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the serious situation with regard to welfare.

When I refreshed my memory I was shocked, even though I really recall the statistics and the heartbreak that has happened over the last few years. In 1985, 32,000 case loads were on record in Metropolitan Toronto. The case load was 32,000 in 1985; by 1990 it had gone to 51,000. Today we're looking at a case load in Metropolitan Toronto of 118,000 -- just here in Metropolitan Toronto -- a tremendous increase.

In terms of the unemployable, the case load through that period of time has just about doubled. In 1985 it was 16,000 and by 1993, today, about 31,000. The unemployable -- and here's where the real tragedy is -- in terms of the unemployable, a 16,000 case load in 1985, 32,000 in 1990 and 87,000 case load in Metropolitan Toronto today. These are people dependent on the welfare system. In total, if you take dependants as well as the case load itself, there are over 200,000 people dependent upon welfare in Metropolitan Toronto today.

This party, of course, supports any move that, for those people and for the people on family benefits, would make the system more efficient and less costly for the taxpayer of this province. However, I must say that to me it seems a somewhat simplistic approach.

The times are constantly changing. The situations we face are constantly changing. When the welfare scheme was formulated in the first instance, it was viewed as being a short-term support for people who needed a little bit of help in between jobs. Today I question whether that's the case.

Today I think we would have to look at welfare -- just looking at the case load, looking at the unemployable on the case load -- welfare today has become almost an extended or long-term income support system, and are we talking about this? Even when the reports that have been alluded to by the member for Sarnia, by the member for Ottawa-Rideau, even the report dated May of last year, even when those reports were put out, I think the circumstances were different. We did not at that time view our future in the light that we do today.

The economists today are saying that perhaps we will have a 10% unemployment rate for the next 10 years, that over 10% of the population will be unemployed for the next 10 years. There are different circumstances today. I don't think we're taking that into account.

What we really need is to have a boost in our economy to get people back to work. We need to create jobs, to get people off welfare and back to work. What we get instead is the Jobs Ontario program which -- one municipal representative I talked to recently, at any rate, described this as a program that if the economy picks up, the program isn't needed and if the economy doesn't pick up, the program won't work. It's interesting that in terms of the Jobs Ontario applicants in Metropolitan Toronto, 60% of them have at least high school education.

These are people who would have a job at some point in time, regardless of the economic situation, and the people who really need the help, the people without the skills, are not able to get involved.

In terms of, will we save money by combining the two programs, will we save on duplication: Yes, there's some possibility that some duplication could be saved, but the auditor has pointed out that within the family benefits system, due to fraud, due to overpayment, we are probably spending in the province of Ontario about $150 million too much. We should be tackling that today.

We should not wait until this resolution finds its way through to combine the two systems. There is fraud today in the welfare system. There is fraud today in the family benefits system. These are two large systems where the problems should be tackled, regardless of this resolution, and I don't think it should take this resolution to solve those kinds of problems for the taxpayers.

In terms of some of the other problems that will be faced, there are differences, and the member for Sarnia pointed out that there are differences, for example, in the welfare eligibility criteria, across this province. Some municipalities permit students to be eligible for the welfare system under certain circumstances, and other municipalities do not. We need to have discussion about this. How is that going to work? How will there be equity if the system is all melded into one -- one family benefits and one welfare system?

Special needs, again, are different across this province. The member for Sarnia has indicated that there should be an equal standard in that case, but there needs to be a whole lot of discussion about this. It just won't happen overnight. Exit programs, skills upgrading to get people off welfare and back into the workforce, community support programs: These are all different across this province and there needs to be some sort of standardization and some look at that and I don't see, in the

preamble here, any mention of those kinds of programs and I think we need to have a healthy discussion on them.

Those are my comments. I will leave it to the member for Burlington South to complete our representation.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): First of all, I'd like to thank my colleague and my neighbour, who lives down in southwestern Ontario, in our neck of the woods, Mr Huget, for this resolution and congratulate him on his sensitivity and insight. This resolution reflects exactly what the people of the province have been telling the government, and we can't agree more with it.

When my colleague talks about the problems and why is it being introduced today, as I heard from the member for Ottawa -- I forget the exact location -- Rideau, "Why is it coming forward today," I know my colleague has been pushing for this and we know the time lines around private members and getting the actual opportunity to introduce a resolution. This was put before us a long time ago and I think it's very important that we keep bringing it out.

So I'm kind of glad that my colleague has brought it forward, because we're trying to deal with the issues of getting people back to work. We have a system right now in which two pieces of legislation make it very difficult for people to understand. With the current economic crisis that is upon us in our own communities -- and I reflect on own community, where free trade has caused us major job losses, plant closures are there, businesses are going under, and people, for the first time in their lives, are having to depend on social services. It's very disheartening.

When we look at social services, we must not just reflect upon the adults who are there; we must also reflect upon the children who are dependent upon social services in order to provide for basic food and basic shelter in everyday living in our society.

The fact that the system is very complex -- people do not understand it. Those on it for the first time have difficulty understanding it. Does it actually meet the needs of those consumers? We believe it doesn't. I heard the member from the Conservative Party raise that it's a disincentive to go back and re-educate. You're absolutely right. There is a disincentive when you enter a community college or a university to upgrade your skills. The disincentive is there because you're cut off social services.

That has to be addressed and I know the Minister of Education and Training now, but then under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, had to address that issue through the OSAP reforms, which are going to make it more viable for people to enter back into the education system and upgrade their skills. So that's an important step.

But, as indicated in the throne speech, we can no longer continue to tinker with it. We need to make major reform that reflects the concerns of the people of the province of Ontario, making sure that we provide a system that will allow people to access and get back to work, whether it be job training, volunteer work or opportunities that are in their communities.

We also, as a government, recognize that we must benefit the recipients, benefit the administrative people who are having a difficult time and also benefit our own communities around social assistance costs.

We are, as a government, embarking -- and they're saying, "Why is it taking so long?" Because of the two-tier system that is in place, both at the municipal level and provincial level, it is important for us as a government to work with other levels of government, especially the municipal governments, on the disentanglement exercise that we've been going through and making sure that we are clear in our directions, clear in the administration, clear in our understanding of those communities and the effects on the administration of programs.

There must also be an ownership in the process. As we talk about the 100% funding, you cannot relieve without responsibility. The responsibility of municipalities and their effect around social services is very important.

I'm looking at the time. I've been trying to talk very fast, and I know a number of my colleagues wish to speak on this.

I think the timing is very important, because as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, we have outlined a reflection of what we believe, which was outlined in the throne speech, that we must make major reforms.

But I believe it is very important for this government to take the opportunity that is also put forward with this resolution to send a message loud and clear to the public of Ontario: It is time to make major reforms, reforms under one system that will be administered through one system, which will allow one major goal, and the major goal is to return people back to our workforce so that non-reliance on social services is there, and making sure that the elements around the working environment are there to make sure that protection of good incomes to provide for families is there.

And you're absolutely right. If we can get people off Jobs Ontario and we no longer need Jobs Ontario, it must mean that it's working well, it's relieving our social service case load and yes, there are people entering back into the workforce, which allows not only a financial responsibility but an emotional one too, because not everybody likes to be on social services.

They like to have gainful employment, they like to feel good about themselves, and I believe that if we make a constructive and positive change around social services, we can achieve that: to put self-confidence back into those individuals who are currently faced with the economic crises that are upon us, with job loss through free trade and other economic situations that face them in their communities.

So I would like to say thank you to my colleague. It's unfortunate that it took this time to get here, but I know he, being elected, when he first came to this Legislature addressed the issues around social service and around social justice, and I thank him for the opportunity to speak to this resolution on administrative change and the change that needs to be here in the province of Ontario.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to Mr Huget's resolution. This resolution does not bring forth any new ideas. It simply reiterates what I and many others have been saying for the last few years; namely, that the system needs to be streamlined to be more efficient and that responsibility for the delivery of social services must be entrusted to one agency with a clearly defined mandate.

Many concerns prompted me to introduce Bill 154, the Government Cheque Cashing Act, which prohibits charging fees for cashing a government cheque. I felt that low-income Ontarians, many of whom depend almost exclusively upon social assistance, were being cheated out of moneys they were entitled to receive in full.

I also proposed other means by which the government could save money while protecting the revenues of low-income Ontarians. I recommended an agreement with financial institutions and the expansion of the direct deposit system. It now appears that this government has finally seen the light. I have learned through a reliable source that mandatory direct deposit will be implemented as a means of streamlining social assistance, thus saving this government millions of dollars. I must congratulate your government. It is the only government that seems to be prepared to take this measure, but why did it take so long?

Something does concern me, however. It is that this government is feeling the pinch of the recession and that is its sole motivation in implementing mandatory direct deposit. Bill 154 addressed all government cheques, not just social assistance, and it was introduced to protect low-income consumers from abusive commercial activities. But the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would not touch the issue. I simply find it regrettable that this government still does not recognize the need to protect the most vulnerable persons in our society.

Do not misunderstand. I fully support measures that will save money while improving the delivery of social assistance. But it would be reassuring to know that this government also has heart. At this point in time, its work is not complete. Many low-income persons will remain vulnerable.

I have said repeatedly that Bill 154 is the first step in a series of measures to protect low-income Ontarians and to ensure the responsible delivery of social assistance. This is an important point, because the citizens of Ontario expect their taxes to be well spent, and if this government wants to be consistent, it will legislate the prohibition of fees charged on the cashing of all government cheques. If the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations takes its mandate seriously, it will get involved in this issue as well.

Back in 1989, my resolution regarding cheque-cashing fees enjoyed the support of the House. Responsible administration and consideration of the needs of low-income Ontarians is not the government's prerogative; it is also our responsibility, one that I have taken to heart because I have the duty to protect the vulnerable in our society, and so does everyone else in this House.

As a representative of taxpayers, I am also concerned about the cost of social assistance. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has embarked upon the right track, but it needs to proceed step by step. It should start with the implementation of Bill 154. It has waited too long already.

I will support your resolution, Mr Huget, but tell your minister that Bill 154, which is now awaiting third reading, will save this province millions of dollars, and now is the time to pass this bill.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to just take a few minutes to comment on my colleague's resolution. It would appear to me that this resolution is more or less premature in the fact that it's only dealing with a small administrative problem with social assistance and family welfare benefits. There are much greater problems to be looked at and solved before bringing this together in the form of guaranteed income or some form of payment such as that because, as you know, in the 1992 annual report from the Provincial Auditor, over $600 million was paid out on account of fraud and overpayment.

There's no mention here to get to the root of this problem. The taxpayer, the worker who does have a job, is getting fed up with having to pay out for social benefits when the administration of these two programs is in such a mess that you can have an amount like $600 million per year wasted in fraud and overpayment. It is my position that we have to get the problems in order here, and after we get these other problems, the financial problems, corrected and have a firm plan bringing these together, then we can come forward with this resolution.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Mr Huget's resolution calls for one new piece of legislation to cover social assistance, and I believe everyone is going to agree on that. He also asks that the legislation have a

preamble and a purpose clause that would state the underlying values of the administration system and the fundamental objectives of social assistance. I think that is certainly worth us spending a little time on.

Unfortunately, one hour in this House is certainly not enough to discuss such a very important and, as the previous speaker said, controversial assistance system, which of course takes so much of the province's money. Maybe it's time we called for public forums right across this province to deal head on with people's feelings and attitudes. Maybe it's come to that point.

This morning, though, I'd like to do two things. First of all, he calls on each of us to think about the fundamental objectives of social assistance, and secondly, I would like to also tell you what I feel are some of the very obvious problems that I see in the current system.

The question first is, what is the purpose? I'd like to give you some of the thoughts that my colleagues and I have shared over the past year or so, because certainly since coming to government two and a half years ago we've realized that it is very important that we confront the very basis of what social assistance is all about.

Let's start, I believe, by all of us in this House agreeing that each individual in society is of inherent worth. We start with that premise.

Secondly, income not only provides the basic necessities of life; it is much, much more important than that. It gives us choice over our lives, and if one has choice in meaningful ways, we can develop our lives and therefore contribute to society, and if we don't have that choice in our lives, we will never be able to fully contribute to society and fulfil the resources that we were given.

Thirdly, many are able to gain access to economic resources through employment, but let's face the fact that others are not, either for a short term or for long periods of time, whether it's through disability or other circumstances. That is a fact of life that could befall any of us here.

Also, all citizens should have access to income without fear of punishment or stigma, and that's something that deserves a little further thought.

Some of the problems that I see with the system -- and I would like to acknowledge that much work has been done since about 1986 or so, of course, with the reports of Transitions, Back on Track and Time for Action, but I still see that we have to remove the disincentives to work. That is I think the primary problem that all of us across Ontario would say has to be addressed very soon. I cannot stress this too much.

We also have to look at the relationship of the social assistance system to the working poor and how those people on very, very low incomes who are working relate to the levels of income on social assistance.

Of course, now across the province we do have several pilot projects called opportunity planning, and they're so important to try to change attitudes and enable people to get that first step into the workforce.

Our government, I'd also like to point out, over the past two years has provided much, much more money, hard cash, into training. There can be absolutely no question of that, and that's part of this whole system that we're now looking at in the future, the importance of having the opportunity for folks to get into training. And of course we know that a job, to our own lives, to the lives of our families, is crucial to our self-esteem, so the bottom line is, people need a job.

The second most important problem that I see in the current system is the attitudes actually within the system that have been built up for years and years. What we want is not a passive system which marginalizes people and keeps them there on the fringes of society but one that enables people to get back into society. That's what I call an active system, not a passive system.

Over the years, what we have is a system that has evolved and developed with certain attitudes, and that philosophy has then created the system and kept it perpetually the way it has been. It's now time to break that cycle.

Many clients feel that they put their lives on social assistance in what I call "a holding pattern" because of the way in fact they are actually treated by social assistance, and the whole system and society. In fact workers don't have the time, let's face it, in many cases to actually deal with people, to provide them with the opportunities and the knowledge that they need to get those choices in their lives and to get some self-esteem.

There are many other problems. I'd like to touch on a couple of them: First of all, the many categories within the system; secondly, the student welfare question has to be addressed; and thirdly, the OSAP question -- when people are on social assistance, they need OSAP many times and also they need child care to enable them to change their lives.

Certainly, now is the time, after two and a half years. The white paper will be released in June and I would push very much -- I would ask everyone to help me in this -- to get new legislation as soon as possible.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Colleagues on this side of the House have been lamenting the fact and decrying the fact that the Transitions report is now four years old, and I want to speak to the particular impact of delay on our native communities. We may think that the problems presented by our existing social assistance system as they are presented in our communities are significant, but I want to tell you something of the impact they're having in our native communities.

Let's begin by understanding that unemployment on our reserves is over 50%. There are 4,000 families who are waiting for new homes. There are 3,800 homes that are in dire need of renovations. Only 50% of our native homes have central heating. Seventy per cent of our on-reserve native population and 32% of our Metis and non-status Indian households receive social assistance.

The Statement of Political Relationship referred to by Mr Huget in his resolution is a very important document and it places a very significant obligation on the government, much more so than a campaign promise would or some informal commitment or moral obligation. This is a Statement of Political Relationship, a formal document signed by representatives of the first nations and the Ontario government, and it places a special obligation on the government to move towards recognition in a very real way of our first nations' right to self-government.

To that end, it's important that the government begin to recognize that the social assistance system is simply not working on reserves, and more importantly, or just as importantly, to recognize that the reasons it's not working on the reserves are not the same reasons it's not working for the rest of Ontario communities.

Briefly put, because I don't have much time to speak to this important issue, the social assistance system as it exists today is rooted in cultural values and premises that are at odds with or fundamentally inconsistent with some of the basic values that our first nations cultures hold. I think you can also make a very good argument to the effect that the social assistance system as it exists today is in fact actually contributing to the tremendous rate of dependency that exists in our first nations communities.

As well, I think it's important to recognize that a system that will work in our non-native communities is not one that will necessarily work on the reserves. In keeping with the Statement of Political Relationship, the solution lies in allowing our first nations to develop and control the system specific to their needs. It won't be easy, but it's an obligation that is imposed upon the government by virtue of the Statement of Political Relationship.

Essentially, we're talking here about a question of jurisdiction. It's going to be absolutely essential that first nations be given the legislative authority to create their own system, one which will allow them to develop a system that is specific to their needs, and recognizes not only the differences between first nations generally speaking and the rest of Ontario but as well the differences between the various first nations.

One final point I want to make is that it's also critical that we recognize that there are some very specific problems related to our first nations communities: those who are living off reserves. At the present time, to the best of my knowledge, there is no documentation, no studies that have been specific to those needs, so we need a community-based consultation process directed by and for our native peoples, and the results of that kind of a study will allow us to gain some understanding of the best direction in which we can move in order to address off-reserve native populations.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on this resolution today, although I'm rather quite surprised by the government's pre-emptive move through one of its backbenchers to discuss one small, minute aspect of social assistance in this province. I was in this Legislature in 1985 when the NDP third party -- it came last in that election -- put in its accord document as a condition of making the Liberals the government that social service reform was a big priority, that it had to be on the front burner.

We've had report after report. My colleagues in the Liberal Party have been talking about reports that are four, five and, some reports, six years old. The most important report in my view that's come down in the last eight years since the Liberals and the NDP have been playing with the poor is the issue of the auditor's report of 1992.

What emerged from this report was so compelling, that the amount of abuse and the amount of poor administrative structures by the government of the day was such that as much as 10% of the $6.2 billion spent by taxpayers for social assistance in this province -- 10% of it, $600 million -- was not recovered when it was fraud or overpayment or misplaced or sent out the door and should not have gone out of these buildings to recipients who didn't deserve it.

We're here in this Legislature today discussing maybe merging the two systems after eight years of discussion, maybe combining a few little things here. Nowhere in this resolution is there anything about the taxpayers who are paying for this in this province.

But three miles from here, if you go right down to the Royal York Hotel, all the major unions in this province are sitting at the social contract table and they're saying to Bob Rae and his government, "Before you lay off a teacher in a school who's helping a child with learning difficulties, before you lay off a nurse in a hospital who's helping our parents who may be ill, before you lay off an ambulance worker who's protecting the people of this province who are injured, why don't you look at the $600 million that the auditor says you can save?"

People talk about there should be dignity and people shouldn't have to feel stigmatized by collecting welfare. I tell you that the people who are ripping off our welfare system are laughing at this government and they're laughing at today's debate talking about changing a few little systems.

You in your throne speech said, "No amount of tinkering's going to help this system." Well, I beg to differ with you. The auditor's report was so compelling that the public accounts committee started meeting several months ago. The evidence was overwhelming about the changes that could be made to bring in a system with integrity, within a system that can respond to the needs of the poor but also stop the growing fraud and abuse that's occurring in our system.

But instead of the government cooperating with the opposition members who were pursuing this, the government members hijacked the committee and that report is not even being written. Their simple statement was, "We think we're doing a good job." Well, you're not doing a good job. The auditor says you're not doing a good job. There are courts all over this province where people who are defrauding welfare are going before a judge; the judges don't think you're doing a good job. The municipalities don't think you're doing a good job. But you people are patting yourselves on the back because you have some resolution that says at some future event this is going to be a priority for us.

If this government was really committed, it would look for example to the province of Quebec where they brought in legislation to catch welfare cheats. Their levels of support for welfare recipients have improved in Quebec. Why? Because they're catching people who are defrauding the system. Quebec's system is working so well that they're catching people from their own province coming to Ontario and collecting welfare. And you know what happens? Because Ontario says, "Hey, we don't want to hear about it; that would be a violation of their rights," they get cut off their Quebec welfare because they can get it in Ontario.

What kind of stupidity, what kind of further example do we need to demonstrate that we have a system out of control and a government that lacks the commitment to do something about it?

If you go to New Brunswick, it has brought in a whole series of reforms, if that's the word the government wants to use, that allow the system to respond to the real need. I'll repeat that: It allows the system to respond to the real need. Taxpayers deserve governments that respect that governments don't pay the bills; people pay the bills, taxpayers pay the bills.

That's the message that should be on the floor of the Legislature today. That's the message of the minority report which was submitted by the Conservative Party, with nine recommendations to assist with the $600-million saving. If you'd have listened three years ago when we raised it, we would have had nearly $2 billion in savings instead of shutting down hospital beds and closing day care centres. I look to save the money in this system.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Unlike the member for Burlington South, I'm not going to devote all my time to bashing the welfare recipients when they're down. Most right-thinking people know that only 2% to 3% of all recipients of social assistance are receiving social assistance fraudulently, so you're completely diverting attention from the very real needs of people on social assistance.

I applaud the member for Sarnia for bringing forward this resolution, which answers the clarion call for integration of the two systems made in the Transitions report under the Liberal government, made in the Time for Action report and made in the Back on Track report. I applaud the member for taking the initiative in this direction, and I also congratulate the member for bringing forward a resolution that is, as I'm sure my colleague for Ottawa South will agree, sensitive to the specific needs of first nations.

The member for Ottawa South acknowledged the fact that the Statement of Political Relationship, a very historic document, the first of its kind in all of Canada, recognized that we're dealing with the first nations of Ontario on a government-to-government basis within the Canadian constitutional framework. It's quite clear that, as a group, native people are still quite impoverished. They're underemployed. They're disproportionately dependent on government transfers. Twenty-six per cent of native income comes from government transfers compared to 12% of all other Ontarians.

However, much of these government transfers are actually used to fuel economic development towards making our first nations more self-sufficient.

This economic hardship, which was detailed in the Transitions report and numerous other reports, both on and off native reserves, coupled with the historic lack of control over the way in which social welfare programs are delivered -- although more and more first nations are now administering their own social assistance, some even requiring work in consideration of social assistance.

The economic hardship, coupled with the historic lack of control and its attendant harmful effects, needs to be corrected by creating a system of social assistance that is, as the report of the first nations' community project team -- which, I might indicate to the member for Ottawa South, was not only made up of on-reserve native representatives; it was also composed of off-reserve native representatives -- is recommending, improving and promoting first nations' control of social welfare and making the regulations and policies that flow from that legislation more sensitive to the economic, social and cultural concerns of our first nations community.

I think that's a message that comes through loud and clear in the resolution of the member for Sarnia.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Sarnia has two minutes to make response.

Mr Huget: I'd like to thank the members for Ottawa-Rideau, Don Mills, Chatham-Kent, Carleton East, Lanark-Renfrew, Niagara Falls, Ottawa South, Burlington South and London South for comments on my resolution.

I think it's important to understand, at least from the viewing public's point of view, what private members' hour is all about. It's an opportunity for private members, whether they're government or opposition, to bring forward items and issues that concern them and concern their constituents, and it's in that spirit that I bring forward this resolution. I am far less interested in the partisan politics of the opposition or third party on an important issue that has not only troubled me but my constituents for many, many years.

One of the things I hope to accomplish, and in fact have accomplished, is an elevated debate on a very important issue. I hope that elevated debate will increase the momentum of the government to move forward with social assistance reform. One of the reforms, just one of the reforms, that is necessary -- in fact essential to social assistance in this province -- is the elimination of the two-tier, two-delivery agent system. There is no point in fooling around with two systems that don't work. We need a new system in this province. We need a new system for recipients, we need a new system for administrators --

Mr Jackson: Why are they hiding the bill from you? Why won't they show you the bill? Don't they trust you with the bill?

Mr Huget: -- and, yes, to the member for Burlington South --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Huget: -- we need a new system that prevents fraud and overpayment.

I'm very pleased to bring this resolution forward. I appreciate the support and comments of those who have supported me, and certainly appreciate and understand the political partisanship of those who have not.

The Acting Speaker: Before I call for orders of the day, I do want to say to the honourable member for Burlington South that when he was speaking there were no interjections. I wish he would accord the same rights to the other members of this House.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE / COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

Mr Grandmaître moved private member's notice of motion number 5:

That, in the opinion of this House,

Since for years a number of irritants and obstacles have hindered the free movement of people, goods and services from one side of the Ottawa River to the other in the national capital region; and

Since the national capital region could become a national model of economic integration reflecting the cultural duality of Canada; and

Since, at the present time, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais have struck a joint working committee for the purpose of breaking down existing barriers; and

Since the joint committee has already passed two resolutions, one for purchasing on an unrestricted, competitive basis, and one for personnel recruitment without regard to place of residence; and

Since, furthermore, the committee has launched an in-depth study into the situation in the construction industry with a view to alleviating the sources of frustration in that industry, as well as a project for identifying interprovincial barriers that need to be eliminated;

Therefore, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should take steps, including setting up discussions with the minister's Quebec counterpart, so that the positive initiatives undertaken at the regional level can be followed up at the provincial level at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville) : Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): In the last seven days, much has been said in this House on interprovincial barriers. Only last Thursday my colleague the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, introduced a resolution entitled Employment Equity Policy, and I want to assure the members of this House that in the Ottawa-Carleton region this resolution and Mr Sterling's resolution do have great interest.

Interprovincial barriers are not new between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. They date back to the early 1930s. But in the last 15 years, since 1977, when new laws and regulations were introduced in the province of Quebec, it has been chaos and my resolution of today wants to improve this climate. I think the time has come that we should resolve our differences; our interprovincial barriers should be abolished.

Back in 1977, again when a mobility policy was introduced by the province of Quebec -- and this is a letter from the Canadian Construction Association reminding me of this labour mobility policy, which reads:

"Bidders must engage subcontractors who have a permanent establishment in Quebec and who have the personnel required to do the work. Exceptions are allowed where no specified subcontractor exists in the province of Quebec or where a reasonable price cannot be obtained. Failure to comply with this requirement allows the contracting authority to retain 10% of the subcontractor price.

"Finally, to bring outside construction workers into the province of Quebec, they must obtain a competency card from the Commission de la construction du Québec, which is responsible for monitoring the movement of construction workers in Quebec and which provides placement services. To obtain this card, you must first be recognized in your specific trade by the Centre Travail-Québec. Local residents are given a high priority in this system. Essentially, out-of-province workers will not qualify for a competency card unless they can demonstrate they possess a specialized skill which is not available in the province of Quebec."

This is one of the reasons why so many tradespeople from the province of Quebec are crossing the bridge every day in my region of Ottawa-Carleton to work in Ontario, for the simple reason that these people do have a competency card but don't have a work permit. These people who do work in the province of Quebec without a working permit are even called "illegals." Imagine: illegals.

I know that times are tough in the province of Ontario and in Quebec. Along came the 1981-82 recession, free trade and now we are going through another recession, the 1990-93 recession, which is not over with. Few major projects are taking place in the province of Quebec and in Ottawa-Carleton for many economic reasons, and my resolution today not only deals with the workers, but I want all barriers abolished that prevent people or goods or services from having free circulation or access in the province of Ontario.

I think we have reached an intolerable situation and we must act, and I think the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and la Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais have acted. Now it is up to us. It is up to the province of Ontario and to the province of Quebec to sit down at the same table and negotiate a way or ways to abolish these barriers.

Referring to the Ottawa-Carleton and CUO committee, which is chaired by the regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton, Mr Peter Clark, and also the mayor of Gatineau, Robert Labine, this is the mandate of the working committee:

It "will be responsible for completion of the study and will provide a profile of the movement of construction workers and companies between the two territories and provide a forecast of the construction activity in the next 10 years in the Outaouais." It "will be particularly involved in the analysis of the Quebec legislation and regulations that prevent the free movement of construction workers and companies between both shores."

My colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville and I do sit on the Ontario-Québec Parliamentary Association and we were privileged, we were invited to sit on the RMOC-CUO committee just about four weeks ago. Some real work is being done by the two regional municipalities.

I have a letter from my regional chair, Mr Peter Clark, which is addressed to Frances Lankin, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, which says, and I'll read just a few lines:

"While these employment practices do seem unfair, we believe that the best way to overcome provincial employment barriers is by working collectively with our colleagues in Quebec to constructively address these very important issues. The province of New Brunswick has recently retaliated against Quebec construction laws by imposing the same conditions on construction companies from Quebec that Quebec imposes on construction companies from New Brunswick." This is the important line, "This retaliation has resulted in a regional trade war. This illustrates exactly what we do not want for the national capital region."

I want to make it very clear that I want to give negotiations a chance to work, and I was pleased to hear from Minister Lankin, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that she will be part of a meeting in June, June 7 and 8 of next month, along with the Premier of this province, and they will sit down with the province of Quebec to deal with these barriers.

Also I want to say something about the Ontario-Québec Parliamentary Association, which was newly created. I think it's very, very important to tell the people of Ontario that there is something going on between parliamentarians of Quebec and Ontario, and I'm very, very pleased that we are discussing issues that affect both sides of the river.

The objectives of the Ontario-Québec Parliamentary Association are very clear:

"The association's objectives are to foster the development of interparliamentary cooperation between both assemblies and thereby serve to further understanding, particularly in the fields of legislation, culture, economics, science and technology, and generally reinforce greater friendship, goodwill and mutual understanding."

Those are the objectives of the Ontario-Québec Parliamentary Association. I'm positive that we will work more closely with the province of Quebec and resolve our differences.

This weekend, Mr Speaker, and you are a member of the Ontario-Québec Parliamentary Association, in Toronto we will meet with the province of Quebec and the members of Quebec will receive a copy of Mr Sterling's resolution along with mine. We want to resolve these differences. We want to give negotiations a chance to work.

Il est tellement important. Le temps est venu d'agir. Il faut éliminer les barrières qui existent entre l'Ontario et le Québec et, une fois pour toute, donner le libre-échange ou accès -- des gens, des services et des produits de l'Ontario et du Québec.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm interested in reading the resolution today and I'm somewhat between wanting to vote for this and wanting to vote against it. One might ask what the difference is between this resolution and the resolution I presented to this Legislature and received approval for last week.

I think that the difference in it is marked, and this particular resolution calls for more talk; more talk is what we're talking about today. I think one of the reasons that my resolution gained support last week was that the members of this Legislature, voting independently, had decided that it was time for action, that the time for talk was past. "We needed to put fire to fight fire," were the words of one of the opposition members whom I talked to as we left this Legislature last week.

The proponent of this resolution put forward the letter from Peter Clark, the regional chairman, and he said Mr Clark was trying to travel the high road, so to speak, and saying that by putting forward retaliatory measures in the province of Ontario we would not achieve any kind of resolution to this problem. I think nothing could be further from the truth, and I beg to differ with the regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton. I believe that it's time for action and the time is now.

However, the resolution that Mr Grandmaître, the member for Ottawa East, puts forward goes over a further and a wider scope than the resolution I put forward. It includes as well other matters outside of the construction field.

During the past week, as you can imagine, I have received many correspondences, letters etc, from various different quarters. I received from a Montreal resident a copy of the Montreal Gazette dated May 4, 1993. In it he included the page relating to tenders. If you look on this particular sheet, there are about 20 different tenders on this sheet.

There is an invitation to tender on a new elementary school, and it says, "Only contractors operating under the Quebec policy, ie, main office of the contractor in Quebec." Quebec hydro has eight different projects that it's tendering on. On each one of those eight, it says, "Eligibility: place of business in Quebec," "Place of business in Quebec," "Place of business in Quebec." All eight of them say that.

Concordia University, which of course, as you know, the university sector is funded by both provincial and federal funds -- not only the provinces pay the bills to build our universities, but very much the federal government -- Concordia University: "Only those businesses with their main place of business in Quebec." McGill University, there are two tenders. Only those with their main place of business in Quebec can go in on those. Lastly, the city of Montreal has another tender, "Only those with the main place of business in Quebec."

I have received numerous calls from contractors in this province of Ontario saying that this is not fair. They are fed up with the talk that my government engaged in, the Liberal government engaged in and the New Democratic Party government has now engaged in for over 15 years, with no resolution to this problem. There is serious unfairness with regard to the present construction laws and the ability for our construction workers to cross over into the province of Quebec and have the same opportunity as those workers coming the other way.

The resolution put forward by my friend from Ottawa East is very, very much typical of the Liberal Party of Ontario in not being willing to take definitive hard stands to meet problems. We feel in this party that it is time for a hard definitive stand, as Frank McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick, has done for his province.

I will, however, say that I will support the resolution, and I will be here to vote. The Liberal members of this Legislature did not see fit to come into this Legislature last week, save and except for the member for Nepean, from Ottawa, the eastern part of this province, and put their feelings on record as to how they wanted to vote on this particular matter. I should say that also the member for Cornwall from the Liberal caucus appeared at that time.

We will be here to vote. Anything that will resolve this matter we will support. We would, however, prefer hard action and less talk.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am supporting the resolution by Monsieur Grandmaître, the member for Ottawa East, because I think both in substance and in process he's doing the right thing.

Substance is that Ontario workers and companies are having a difficult time entering into the Quebec market. Substance is that Quebec is erecting barriers that prevent us from entering into its market. We agree with that. There is no doubt and no question that the inability of Ontario construction workers and companies to work on projects in Quebec has to be dealt with. The question we debated last week is how to do that. This is why I believe that the process that is suggested is something that I support very strongly.

I want to add that the process that is suggested is that,

"The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should take steps, including setting up discussions with the minister's Quebec counterpart, so that the positive initiatives undertaken at the regional level can be followed up at the provincial level at the earliest possible opportunity."

I presume that Monsieur Grandmaître means to name the Premier in this case and not the minister who is involved on matters of trade, but he should remember and he should know that the minister who deals with this particular issue in Quebec is not the Premier but rather another minister, and I'm not quite clear what he's suggesting in terms of who it is that he's referring to, whether it should be the premiers or whether it should be other ministers who are dealing with trade matters.

That's something of course that can be clarified, but I have no problems that the premiers of Ontario and Quebec get together to talk about how to reduce those barriers. We've done that in the constitutional discussions, where four of the ministers of intergovernmental affairs were premiers and the others were not. It presents some problem, I suppose, in some cases, but it added a great deal of credibility that we had four premiers at those constitutional conferences to deal with all matters as they relate to each other. We have no problems with that.

We think we've made tremendous headway in attempting to reduce those barriers, so I want to support the suggestion that Monsieur Grandmaître has made that the premiers, which I think is his intent, get together and move this agenda. It's also quite possible that the premiers instructed their ministers to move quickly on this matter and deal with it as quickly as possible.

But I want to talk a bit about what's been happening in order for our audiences to understand what steps have been taken. On March 18, 1993, the committee of ministers on internal trade agreed to begin comprehensive negotiations to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. As well, ministers confirmed a moratorium on the creation of new trade barriers.

If you recall, I made the argument last week that New Brunswick's actions have breached that agreement. They were erecting similar barriers as Quebec. I pointed out last week that Mr Sterling's motion, which many in this House have supported, would do the same thing. The proposed solution was to erect barriers to solve barrier problems, and I argued that that was a mistake. I argued that that would exacerbate our trade problems with each other.

In my view, it's in the overall interest of all governments in Canada to work to eliminate barriers to trade to avoid taking actions which would lead to even greater barriers to trade between the provinces, and that's the resolution that we passed here last week.

In my view, that enhances and exacerbates the problem. In my view, that encourages provincial cannibalism. In my view, that measure that we took last week proposes a guillotine measure to solve something that intergovernmental ministers on trade should be dealing with, which is what they're dealing with. That is the way to go. Any other proposed way to go will increase the frictions between provinces in Canada, and I don't think that's what we want to do.

The process that we are suggesting, and that I am supporting, allows for several things. If we get rid of barriers today, it doesn't solve all of our problems; there are things that need to be dealt with. We need, as guiding principles, to deal with other issues that are part of these trade discussions. We need to solve issues such as having full disclosure of information, legislation, regulations, policies and practices that have the potential to impede a single integrated market in Canada.

We need exceptions and transition periods as well as special needs consistent with regional development objectives in Canada. We need to take into account the importance of environmental objectives, consumer protection and labour standards. All of these things need to be debated in a calm setting, in a setting where we are sharing with each other the types of problems that provinces are experiencing and what kinds of resolutions need to be put into place in order to satisfy the different needs we all have in our provinces, because we're not all the same.

We're different, and these guiding principles that I alluded to need to be taken into account. Applying the guillotine to this doesn't deal with that.

I suggest to Mr Sterling, in supporting Mr Grandmaître's motion, that we have to give the ministers on internal trade, who are meeting, as I understand it, in the week of June in Vancouver, the time to solve this in an amicable way, as it should be, and give them the opportunity to deal with the guiding principles that I spoke about and not undermine that process that is fully in place by taking measures that will exacerbate this problem in a very, very disturbing way.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): It is a pleasure for me to rise and support the resolution brought forward by my colleague regarding the removal of interprovincial barriers in general and the removal of trade irritants between Ontario and Quebec in particular.

Cette résolution vient à point. Nous n'avons plus de temps à perdre.

I would like everyone to keep in mind the following statistics as we debate this resolution. The World Competitiveness Report, issued by IMD International and the World Economic Forum in 1992, ranked Canada 11th out of 22 major industrial countries. In 1991 Canada was in sixth place, and five years ago it ranked fifth. These statistics are sobering and disturbing. What is happening to Canada, to a country that enjoys so many natural advantages and that should be competing as effectively as other nations?

It is fair to say that interprovincial barriers within Canada are contributing to the decline of Canada's competitiveness abroad. Barriers also have a negative impact on our internal economy. Even though tariff barriers between provinces are prohibited by the Constitution Act, the proliferation of non-tariff barriers has created an extremely protectionist internal economy. This situation is ultimately to no one's advantage.

Il est estimé que plusieurs milliards de dollars sont perdus chaque année en raison des barrières commerciales interprovinciales. Nous ne pouvons plus nous permettre un tel gaspillage de ressources humaines, naturelles et de capitaux.

Concerns over interprovincial trade barriers are not new. Back in 1937 the Rowell-Sirois commission studied this very issue. Its conclusions were, not surprisingly, quite similar to the criticisms we are hearing today. More recently, Canadian governments at the federal and provincial levels consider the issue serious enough to be included in the package of constitutional reforms.

Part of the problem, however, is that, historically, provincial governments have hesitated to act decisively and to eliminate barriers. My colleague's resolution is innovative in that he proposes the national capital region as a model of economic integration reflecting the cultural duality of Canada. This project would have great symbolic value, but more importantly, it would demonstrate very clearly what can be accomplished when all players involved work together and agree on the desired outcome. Since direction from above has been lacking, why should regional governments not lead the way and show what can be done?

Interprovincial barriers have hindered the free movement of people, goods and services from one side of the Ottawa River to the other in the national capital region for many years. Many persons have complained, and the problem is serious. I am pleased to say that not only are my colleagues and myself from the area listening, but we are also acting upon this issue. We are seeking a solution to this problem.

In January of this year, Mr Grandmaître indicated that he would introduce the present resolution. Since then, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais have commissioned a joint study pertaining to interprovincial trade barriers.

What I find most positive is the emphasis placed upon a constructive approach to this matter, as opposed to the strident calls for retaliation, as we have heard recently and as we have heard again this morning. We must not follow the New Brunswick example. A regional or provincial trade war is the last thing anybody needs at this time. I would add that there exist better ways of making one's point than playing tit for tat.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa East stated just a minute ago, the objectives of the Ontario-Quebec association are very clear. These objectives support the need to establish a positive and open climate conducive to the exchange and discussion of ideas. As a member of this association, I can assure you that excellent relations have developed between members of both assemblies. During our meeting in Quebec City last year, we discussed the issue of interprovincial barriers. We acknowledged the problem and recognized the need to deal with it.

Je tiens absolument à souligner l'importance du dialogue entre nous et nos homologues québécois. Nous devons travailler ensemble, agir dans la concertation et surtout ne pas céder à l'esprit de vengeance qui court. La mesquinerie et le manque de prévoyance ne donnent absolument rien. La coopération en vue d'un objectif commun peut, au contraire, nous rapporter beaucoup.

This is an important point: We must not bring old and unjustified resentment against Quebec into this debate. I know that the situation in the construction industry is a difficult one in the Ottawa-Carleton region; my office has received many complaints. But the issue must be understood from a wider perspective, because it is not just a local issue. The fact is that provincial governments, for a number of reasons, have maintained trade barriers despite their repeated commitments to free trade within Canada. Ontario is as guilty as any province in this respect. Also, many industries with vested interests benefit from protectionist policies and advocate the status quo.

To single out Quebec as the villain is misleading. The member for Kenora proved this last week by explaining how contractors from Manitoba appear to benefit from certain advantages, such as lower provincial sales tax, which places them in a better position to compete against contractors from Ontario.

In conclusion, I support my colleague's resolution because it is reasonable, it is positive and it is realistic.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): It's always a pleasure to support a colleague in his quest for fairness. However, the problem here, as I see it, is that we've been attempting to get this fairness now through discussions, through a committee. My colleague the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, and my colleague who just preceded me in the debate, the member for Ottawa East, belong to this committee, and we have discussed till we're blue in the face. What's occurred is that insult has been added to injury. We have not corrected a very unfair situation, but in many instances we've added some more barriers, and I'm very concerned about that.

To me, it's much more than a regional issue. It certainly covers my riding, and S-D-G & East Grenville is not considered to be in the greater Outaouais area; it's in eastern Ontario. It's a problem that's been there and been a major irritant for a long time.

The reason I say that insult's been added to injury is that we now have farm pickups that come from my area with Ontario plates on them going to Quebec. If they have any commercial writing on them at all, they are subject to a $750 fine plus some court costs, which is costing well over $800, because they don't have the Quebec fuel sticker on them. That just came in in the last year and a half while we were negotiating to attempt to correct the labour problems in the construction industry, access by Ontario workers to Quebec -- and we do not have access.

Does the province of Quebec realize what's going on? I believe the elected politicians realize what's going on: The province is being run by the unions. The union of construction workers calls the shots. They not only call the shots on workers outside the province of Quebec, but they call the shots within 17 distinct and separate areas within the province, where you have to have a working permit to go from one region to another. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

The reason I have to support my colleague the member for Ottawa West today and supported very strongly my colleague from Carleton last week is that we have not been able to accomplish any progress through negotiations. I believe that Frank McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick, had the right idea. He got their attention. We seem to have problems getting their attention.

I will simply quote some of the requirements that the tendering process requires in Quebec. It reads as follows, verbatim:

«Il existe un nombre de secteurs d'emploi au Québec qui exigent un lieu de résidence au Québec, exigence que l'on ne trouve pas en Ontario. Il y a le secteur minier, qui ne concerne pas la région de l'Outaouais, mais le secteur de construction, qui est plus important pour la région, et la fonction publique du Québec. Notons que les règles de l'Office de la construction empêchent les résidents d'Ottawa-Carleton de travailler du côté québécois, alors que de 2 000 à 4 000 résidents du Québec travaillent sur les chantiers ontariens. Les exigences exigent que les compagnies et leurs bureaux-chefs soient au Québec et exigent que les travailleurs soient du Québec.

What more can I tell you? The requirements are there and they're fairly simple. You must have your headquarters in the province of Quebec, and that is the only way you can get to work on Quebec construction sites.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has estimated that interprovincial trade barriers to Canadians cost $6.5 billion a year, or over $1,000 for a family of four, on an annual basis on these provincial government procurement policies regarding food processing, construction, consulting engineer, machine tool sales, import and distribution of metal-cutting machines, steel, electrical systems, boilers etc. We are working towards a global economy, and yet we have these major interprovincial barriers that must be taken down.

I have no hesitation whatever in supporting my colleague from Ottawa East in his resolution. Let's hope we can get their attention at least.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Je veux aujourd'hui signaler mon intention, comme je pense l'intention de la plupart des députés de l'Assemblée, de dire qu'on est en faveur de la résolution du député d'Ottawa-Est.

Je veux vous dire pourquoi moi, je suis en faveur. Je pense que ce que le député a dit, c'est réellement la question que je pense que tous les députés de l'Assemblée, comme la plupart de la population ontarienne, reconnaissent. Ils reconnaissent que c'est très important qu'on ait une attitude entre les deux provinces pour être capables de faire un échange libre entre les provinces.

La manière, je pense, d'être capable d'atteindre ce point-là, c'est de s'asseoir comme gouvernement responsable et négocier entre les provinces et le fédéral une entente qui va jusqu'au point de dire, «Si je suis un contractuel ou si je suis une industrie au Québec ou en Ontario, je peux faire des affaires à travers la frontière Québec-Ontario sans avoir des restrictions.» Je pense que l'approche que le député prend est une approche qui est très responsable et je pense que c'est une approche qui fait du bon sens, un peu différente de celle du député de Carleton-Est, la semaine passée, qui avait la même idée mais d'une manière un peu différente.

Je veux rien que signaler deux affaires aux députés ici et au monde qui regarde. Premièrement, il faut reconnaître quelque chose. L'Ontario et le Québec, quand ça vient aux échanges, à l'argent qu'on échange entre nous deux, l'économie québécoise et ontarienne sont très importantes. Le Québec, quand ça en vient à leurs ventes, l'Ontario représente la plus grosse économie pour acheter leurs produits, qui a pour effet la production au Québec.

Nous autres, ici en Ontario, 40 % de toutes nos exportations hors de la province de l'Ontario vont directement au Québec. Pour quelqu'un de dire qu'on va être capables d'augmenter ces nombres-là en ayant une guerre entre le Québec et l'Ontario faisant affaire avec les questions d'échanges, je pense que je pourrais nuire à ces chiffres-là. Je pense que, pour être responsable, comme le député d'Ottawa-Est dit, on a besoin de trouver une manière de négocier une entente sans entrer en guerre entre les deux économies qui pourrait nuire. Je pense qu'à la fin de la journée, ses chiffres sont très importants.

Alors, rappelez-vous : 40 % de nos exportations de l'Ontario vont directement au Québec. Je pense que ça a besoin d'être signalé.

L'autre affaire que je pense le monde a besoin de reconnaître, c'est que déjà la province de l'Ontario, avec le Québec et d'autres provinces à travers le Canada, face au gouvernement fédéral avec le leadership de M. Mulroney, a fait une entente en 1992 faisant affaire avec une entente interprovinciale sur les achats du gouvernement. Quoiqu'on ait fait une entente à négocier à ce point-là, c'est que n'importe quelle province au Canada, ou le fédéral, peut tourner de bord et dire, «Écoute, on ne vous laisse pas, parce que vous êtes Ontariens, vous êtes pas Québécois, vous êtes pas Manitobains, acheter nos produits», faisant affaire avec government procurements.

Si on était capable de trouver une entente faisant affaire avec cette question, qui est très importante parce que c'est la moitié du problème, je pense qu'on pourrait s'asseoir comme province responsable ici au Canada et en venir à une entente faisant affaire avec comment être capable de «dealer» avec la question à laquelle nous faisons face aujourd'hui faisant affaire avec l'industrie de la construction.

I'd like to say directly to my friend from Carleton, last week he stood in this assembly and put forward a resolution that I think had the same intent as the member for Ottawa East's, except his approach was very different. I have difficulty with the approach, because he was advocating an approach that would have said: "Let's fight fire with fire. Let's go into a trade war with Quebec" -- basically, that would have been the result of that -- "and let's show them that we can negotiate from a position of strength."

I think it's a very interesting point for the Conservative Party of Ontario to make, Mr Speaker, because I would remind you, and I'm sure you understand, that its own federal cousins in Ottawa do not support such an approach. If we take a look at the negotiations under the free trade agreement, the whole approach of the Conservatives in Ottawa has been to remove interprovincial trade barriers and not to have trade wars. I think they recognize, like most other people recognize, that once you start getting into trade wars, you could lead yourself down a path economically that could be very destructive.

Also, just recently, Mr Speaker, you would be aware that their federal cousins in Ottawa, Mr Mulroney and the Conservative Party, are in the process of ratifying a humongous trade deal called the North American free trade agreement. Under NAFTA, there's a clause in there that says that no government, in Canada, the United States or Mexico, is going to have the right to protect its markets with regard to procurement on the part of governments. In other words, that means that under NAFTA, the province of Ontario could not say, "We're only going to buy our goods from people who make those goods or service those goods from the province of Ontario." We would be contravening NAFTA.

Now, I have problems with NAFTA, but I have a little bit of difficulty with the member for Carleton, how he can on one hand advocate freer trade with Mexico and Canada, to say that we have to open up the procurement process with those people, and then throw barriers up between Quebec and Ontario. I think it's ludicrous for the member to take that position.

I would think -- I hope not; I don't want to put words into his mouth -- it's more of a political statement he made last week in this House rather than an economic statement, because what he is advocating is clearly interprovincial trade wars with Quebec. I do believe that the Conservative Party is opposed to interprovincial trade wars. I think, rather, what he was speaking to is a resentment within the province of Ontario, because it does exist, over the whole question of a lack of jobs within our economy and seeing workers from Quebec coming into our province.

I deal with that in my riding of Cochrane South, the same as the member from Ottawa, my colleague Mrs Gigantes, deals with in Ottawa, and it's difficult for people to come to terms with. But when you sit down as rational people and you say, "Listen, the way of dealing with this is not to take a hammer and hit somebody else on the head," to turn around and to say, "Let's deal with it by having a tit-for-tat war" -- the approach I think most people would recognize is to remove them by negotiations.

We've negotiated the first part of the agreement, which is that now no province in Canada can bar another province from buying procurement products for that province. We've already negotiated half of this. We negotiated that in 1992, saying point blank, "If you're a Quebec company or if you're an Ontario company, or you're a government, you can't stop people from buying from within the country."

The second part of that is a question of the construction industry. We are now going to the table. We have a willingness on the part of their federal cousins in Ottawa, with the Conservative Party, to deal with this. I applaud the federal government for working with us on that initiative. The Quebec government is sort of indicating as if there might be some movement there.

It's a little bit here and there, I agree, but I think by responsibly walking to the negotiating table together, we can get somewhere in the end and be able to negotiate a removal of interprovincial trade barriers that would be to the benefit of those people in Ontario as well as people in Quebec and all across the country.

I would support the member for Ottawa East's resolution and I urge every member to support it because I think it is a prudent approach.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Je voulais vous indiquer que je vais appuyer très fortement la résolution de mon collègue le député d'Ottawa-Est, à

titre premièrement de critique de l'opposition officielle aux Affaires intergouvernementales, mais également à

titre de député d'une circonscription frontalière dans l'est de l'Ontario.

Évidemment, lorsqu'on a un système de libre-échange avec les États-Unis et le Mexique -- c'est absolument bizarre qu'on puisse l'avoir avec Tijuana et El Paso au Mexique mais qu'on ne puisse pas l'avoir avec Grenville et Gatineau, à l'autre côté de la rivière des Outaouais.

Les choses sont vraiment à l'envers dans ce monde et on peut remercier les Conservateurs, au niveau fédéral, de ce genre de cadeau prématuré, d'avoir coprésenté cela sur la scène internationale et d'avoir oublié la scène interprovinciale. On appelle ça, à la campagne, mettre la charrue devant les boeufs, et en parlant de boeufs, allons-y bien.

Ça fait longtemps que je reçois du courrier, des appels de gens de l'Ontario et de Prescott et Russell qui sont très furieux des anomalies de la situation dans le système de libre-échange interprovincial entre l'Ontario et le Québec. J'apprends également que la même situation se produit entre l'Ontario et le Manitoba.

La rivière des Outaouais nous sépare dans l'est avec nos collègues, notre famille du Québec. Je suis certain que le peuple des Outaouais, au moment où ils se promenaient en remontant ou en descendant à la rivière, leur rivière, qu'il n'y avait pas ce genre de niaiseries-là entre les deux provinces comme on le voit présentement.

Mes collègues parlementaires, nous siégeons à l'Association interparlementaire Ontario-Québec et le sous-comité de l'est de l'Ontario et de l'ouest du Québec, nous avons tenu un excellent dialogue. Le moment est venu de régler les problèmes.

Mes collègues auparavant ont fait mention justement des problèmes qui existaient, des essais de négociations. Bien sûr que jusqu'à présent, ça n'a pas été reluisant, mais je suis convaincu que le moment est arrivé et que les parlementaires de l'Ontario et du Québec et aussi du Manitoba sauront, à ce moment-ci, trouver la solution idéale au moyen de résolutions comme celle de mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est et sûrement pas à coup de marteau sur des mouches comme celle proposée par mon collègue le député de Carleton.

Ce n'est pas en commençant avec des menaces, comme l'a fait le Nouveau-Brunswick, qu'on va régler le problème. Bien sûr qu'il y a des irritants. Bien sûr que les gens sont émotionnels. Bien sûr que les gens, comme on dit, sont en beau joualvers et qu'ils le sont sûrement dans les circonscriptions de Carleton et de S-D-G & Grenville-Est et dans Prescott et Russell. Mais le mandat d'un parlementaire, c'est de mettre de l'eau sur le feu et non de l'huile sur le feu. Nous avons une obligation morale de trouver des solutions, de régler le problème à l'amiable comme les gens nous ont mandatés de le faire.

Ce genre de crise émotionnelle-là, de prendre un marteau pour tuer les espoirs de négociations, je condamne ça très sévèrement. Ce n'est pas le temps. Ce n'est pas le moment. Ce n'est pas la façon de faire les choses.

Il y a un paysagiste justement dans l'est de l'Ontario qui a pris son camion, qui a acheté des produits au Québec, qui s'est rendu à Montréal pour se faire remettre une amende de quelque 800 $ parce qu'il n'avait pas acheté son essence au Québec, parce qu'il n'avait pas la taxe au Québec, parce qu'il n'avait pas un permis du Québec, parce que lui avait pris son propre véhicule commercial à lui pour aller chercher des produits fabriqués au Québec. Je trouve ce genre de situation-là complètement anormale et à corriger et à éliminer.

Je viens d'entendre mon collègue de Carleton qui dit : «Pourquoi est-ce qu'on veut taper sur le Québec ? Parce que les États-Unis puis le Mexique vont mieux nous traiter que le Québec.» Quelle chose absolument absurde que d'utiliser ce genre de langage-là. J'espère qu'entre Mexicains, Canadiens, Américains, Ontariens et Québécois, on va être capables de trouver des mécanismes de bonne entente entre voisins au sein de la même famille, plutôt que de proposer et dire qu'on va être mieux traités par les Mexicains et par les Américains que par les Québécois. Ça, c'est vraiment ajouter de l'huile sur le feu.

La solution, ce n'est pas le protectionnisme. Ce n'est pas la «retaliation». Ce n'est pas oeil pour oeil, dent pour dent, la solution. La solution, c'est de libérer, de dialoguer : de libérer les échanges, et je suis convaincu que le moment est malheureusement tardif, mais il est arrivé, le moment de régler la situation.

Éliminer les barrières interprovinciales, ç'est essentiel. Au moment où on se parle, on me dit qu'il y a plus de 500 barrières aux échanges commerciaux interprovinciaux -- complètement ridicules, mais ça va être éliminé. Il faut favoriser le libre mouvement des personnes, des services et des biens, peut importe la province au Canada, sans égard à l'origine des gens qui veulent travailler au Canada. Ces barrières interprovinciales sont complètement ridicules, non nécessaires, exagérées et elles vont disparaître.

The solution is to dialogue, to negotiate, yes, to talk harder, to put the dealings on the table, but to resolve them in a parliamentary fashion, in a diplomatic fashion, from member to another member of this Canadian Confederation, and we are doing that and it's happening.

I want to support this type of resolution from my colleague the member for Carleton East --

Interjections: Ottawa East.

M. Poirier : -- to make sure that we continue and get the results we want, and it's not to hammer away, as is proposed by certain other of my colleagues, that we will resolve it this way.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words today on this resolution. It's a fairly long one, but there are parts in it I'll just read:

"The purpose of breaking down existing barriers... therefore the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should take steps, including setting up discussions with the minister's Quebec counterpart, so that the positive initiatives undertaken at the regional level can be followed up at the provincial level at the earliest possible opportunity."

The resolution is much the same as that of my colleague the member for Carleton last Thursday, where he had an interprovincial trade resolution brought before this Legislature and it passed. I'm pleased to see today that the member Mr Grandmaître has brought this resolution forward to have further debate on it.

It's important to know the discussion that's been taking place in this Legislature last week and this week, and I often wonder how many people in Ontario realize the barriers there are between provinces in Canada, far more barriers than I ever anticipated until the discussions started some time ago, and then, when the discussions were taking place with regard to the Constitution debate, I think more people became aware of the barriers that we have between provinces at that stage than ever before.

It's a barrier that has been brought to my attention in my local riding with regard to contracts that have been let out, with regard to the availability of the construction industry and the people from Quebec being able to come to Ontario to work and to secure jobs here in the construction industry.

I know there's a large contract in our riding that was let with regard to fencing, and it was a large group from Quebec that came and put up all these fences along the 400 highway. It was brought to my attention by people within my riding saying: "How can this happen? Why is it that we're not allowed to be able to go to the province of Quebec and to be able to get contracts?" It has been brought to my attention from people who live near the boundary, the Ottawa River, with regard to them being able to go over the bridge to get work.

We've got to have competitive competition. My colleague mentioned, with regard to the trade barrier, that it costs Canadians about $6.5 billion annually. That amounts to $1,000 for every family of four.

We talk about the approximately 500 barriers to international trade and we look at the studies that have been done. It's easier to do business with the United States than it is to do business with the province of Quebec.

We have the provincial government procurement policies, standards and regulations, provincial licensing requirements and regulations that differ between provinces. We have the distribution restrictions. We have different pricing policies and the marketing boards. These barriers have a serious impact on everything from food processing, construction, telecommunications, transportation, banking and health care products to beer and wine. There are many problems with the barriers to interprovincial trade which negatively affect the efficiency and competitiveness of this province. The basis of the resolution is to do away with those barriers.

I often wonder, as many people have always wondered, how come they were put there in the first place? Why have we had these barriers between the provinces in Canada? I cannot understand it. However, I think these resolutions that have been brought forward last week and this week are bringing it to the people of the province and, I hope, to the minister so that she will negotiate to try to find a way to get rid of the barriers between provinces.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): In the very few seconds that I have left, I'm going to support this resolution tomorrow, because as many of you will know, I represent a district that has a lot of --

Mr Grandmaître: Today, Tony.

Mr Perruzza: Today, today, I'm going to support it today, you're absolutely right. I have a constituency that has a lot of construction workers who are out of work.

I have the Montreal Gazette dated Tuesday, May 4, and I see Quebec Hydro here, its tenders: Eligibility, it reads, place of business, in Quebec. The list continues right through: McGill University, same kind of thing. So if you're a Quebec construction company you can work in Quebec, if you're a Quebec construction company you can come and work in Ontario, but if you're an Ontario company you can't go to work in Quebec. That, to me, doesn't seem to be fair at all.

That's why I'm going to support the resolution. We need some fairness now, not 15 years down the road. We need it today.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It occurs to me, as we address this issue, that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these are difficult economic times. Difficult economic times can breed despair, can lead to people seeking to lash out in a visceral response to difficulties before them, but I think it's incumbent upon us as elected representatives to show some real leadership in this regard, and that is, in this particular matter, not to appeal to baser instincts which would have us lash out and implement some type of punitive response to the difficulties our constituents are facing.

I think much more appropriate, in these circumstances, is to explore all possible avenues prior to entering into or undertaking punitive action. In this particular case, that has not been fully explored.

One of the things I would ask is that the Minister of Labour undertake to enter into negotiations specific to this issue. I understand that the government is about to undertake, in the month of June, some broader-based discussions with its provincial counterparts and the federal government, which have as their end to remove some of the interprovincial trade barriers. That simply isn't adequate, given the circumstances that we face in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I would ask the government to undertake negotiations specific to these particular issues and that those commence at the earliest possible opportunity.

Certainly, one option that I could offer is that the government may very well consider exempting Ottawa-Carleton from the punitive interprovincial construction trade barrier that exists at the present time.

Mr Grandmaître: This is a family portrait. This is the Ottawa-Carleton caucus, and I'm very pleased that they're all supporting my resolution. I can assure you that it feels great when all three parties are on side on a resolution. I haven't seen this in this House for a number of months.

Mr Morin: Except for the member for Carleton.

Mr Grandmaître: Except for the member for Carleton. I'll be addressing the comments of the member for Carleton. I think fighting fire with fire is the wrong attitude. He exposed the same attitude last Thursday by wanting to close the interprovincial bridge's right of way, but I can't --

Mr Sterling: Why didn't you vote against it? Why didn't you come in and vote?

Mr Grandmaître: Will you bring the member for Carleton to order? Can you bring him to order? He's so short, I can't see him when he's sitting down.

But anyway, I want to remind the member for Carleton that we have to work to resolve our interprovincial barriers. I think it's very, very unfair for the member for Carleton saying these kinds of things, for the simple reason that we are trying to create not only an attitude, not only to resolve our differences, but to work together.

As pointed out earlier, we do have free trade with the US and we're working on free trade with Mexico, and I think we should have free trade among our provinces. That's number one. But the federal Tories never thought it was important. It was much better to do business with the US and Mexico and forget about interprovincial barriers.

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): We will deal first with ballot item 7 standing in the name of Mr Huget. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Huget has moved private member's resolution 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): We will deal next with ballot item 8 standing in the name of M. Grandmaître. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

M. Grandmaître has moved private member's resolution 8. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections: Carried.

The Acting Speaker: Carried.

Interjection: No.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry?

Mr Villeneuve: The Liberals said no. I can't believe this. The Liberals said no.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask the members to please take their seats.

Mr Grandmaître has moved private member's notice of motion number 5. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carter, Chiarelli, Cooper, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Frankford, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Malkowski, Marchese;

Martin, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, North, O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Simcoe West), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 56 and the nays being 0, I declare the motion carried.

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

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The Bob Rae-Mike Harris expenditure control program was presented to this Legislature April 23. The expenditure control program was wholeheartedly supported by Mike Harris with the only proviso that --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there is not a quorum present.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Count the members, please.

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

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Speaker: Would you kindly reset the time at 1:30. The member may wish to start over.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the government for finally showing up.

The Bob Rae-Mike Harris expenditure program was presented to the Legislature April 23. The expenditure control program was wholeheartedly supported by Mike Harris with the only proviso that it did not go far enough. The program announced a 20% operating cut to conservation authorities and eliminated the conservation land tax rebate.

The conservation authorities of Ontario protect our watersheds. The Sewell commission on planning suggests more watershed planning. The protection, restoration and management functions of conservation authorities will, however, be severely impacted this operating year. The cuts will translate to a 46% decrease to some authorities. Nine to ten authorities are presently considering selling significant wetlands and forests in order to offset the crisis and chaos the Rae government has created. These lands were often purchased with private donations and help from groups like the Bruce Trail Association and the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

The authorities cannot afford to pay the municipal taxes. This is just one more step towards the creation of a huge environmental deficit by this government. I ask Mr Rae and his government to give serious consideration to the environment and rethink the fairness and priorities of these cuts.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Three years ago the Rotary Centre in Kitchener, which helps some 1,200 children and their families every year, obtained approval from the Ministry of Health for construction of a new children's treatment centre for the disabled children of Waterloo region and Wellington county. To date, the ministry has failed to deliver on the promised funding for this centre.

The excessive delay in obtaining the approved funding has created tremendous uncertainty in my community as well as creating serious problems for the Rotary Centre. Some of the 600-plus donors are now withholding or questioning their financial pledges for this project, and 10 service clubs are anxiously awaiting the commencement of this project to which they have already contributed over $600,000.

In addition, fire, safety and maintenance problems with the existing centre are creating dilemmas about the spending of public funds to upgrade a building which the Rotary Centre expects to vacate soon.

I urge the Minister of Health to recognize the significant problems which her delay in making a decision -- a three-year delay -- is creating, and take immediate action, please, to ensure that the new children's treatment centre becomes a reality in the very near future. The children and their families have waited long enough for a commitment which was made to them almost three years ago.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My constituency, Sault Ste Marie, has been honoured as the host of the Canadian junior hockey championships, the Memorial Cup. The Memorial Cup will start this year on May 14 and end May 23.

As host of this prestigious event, Sault Ste Marie will represent the country and the province of Ontario. Sault Ste Marie is very proud of this opportunity and, most important, ecstatic that our own local hockey team, the Soo Greyhounds, are again in a position to win the national junior championships this year, for the third time.

We must give recognition to the city and the Soo Greyhounds for their relentless efforts to bring the Memorial Cup to the Sault. The economic spinoff of the event will be tremendous to all of us who work and live in Sault Ste Marie.

I am also honoured to have the Premier come to the Sault to help kick off the festivities. Most importantly, Bob Rae and the provincial government have pitched in up to $87,000 to help with the renovations and upgrading the Memorial Gardens, the site of the Memorial Cup. This grant comes from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to help assist the community to make this cross-Canada event worthwhile. The NDP government's investment in the city of Sault Ste Marie will certainly be appreciated.

I want to take this opportunity to invite all of you to watch the Memorial Cup as Ontario represents this country in a sport loved by all Canadians. This is another proud moment for us in the Sault. Congratulations, and go, Hounds, go.

REST HOMES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In November 1990 a coroner's inquiry into the death of a resident in an unregulated boarding home prompted the government to appoint a provincial commission to inquire into unregulated residential homes in the province.

In December of that year, Ernie Lightman was appointed to undertake the study. On June 24, 1992, Elaine Ziemba, Minister of Citizenship, tabled the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Unregulated Residential Accommodation.

The report highlighted the fact that 47,500 vulnerable adults, most of whom are persons with developmental disabilities, psychiatric histories or senior citizens, live in unregulated settings, defined as such because there are no provincial licensing, standards or inspections, nor are there any other viable projections for the lives and wellbeing of these residents.

The Lightman report made numerous positive recommendations, such as a bill of rights for rest home residents. However, the government has yet to act on any of the 148 recommendations that will enhance the living conditions of the marginalized people within our community who deserve the right to live in dignity.

I challenge the Minister of Citizenship to act on the recommendations, instead of allowing this report, like many others that are now sitting in the ministry, to gather dust on the shelf. I hope that the minister reacts to that immediately.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On April 23 the Treasurer announced a change in the definition of "full-time student" from 150 minutes a day to 210 minutes a day. This change will have significant impact on the management of programs and staffing in our secondary schools. The announcement came after school boards had negotiated teachers' salaries, staff levels, programs and mill rates. School boards, principals and teachers were not consulted about this change prior to the announcement.

Minister, we support an effort to streamline our school system. Taxpayers believe that ways must be found to reduce the size of bureaucracy and eliminate the costly duplication of services. Your government promised consultation and partnerships. Management decisions such as the definition of "full-time student" need to be communicated in a timely fashion to allow school boards, administrators, teachers, students and taxpayers to modify programs, timetables and staffing in a responsible manner.

Phasing in of major changes in program and funding changes is responsible, if in fact they are phased in and communicated in a timely fashion. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is unacceptable in any place of work. In education, front-line workers and consumers -- that's teachers and students -- not to speak of taxpayers, have lost confidence in this government's ability to manage and communicate.

ROSE OF DURHAM

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to tell you about a community agency in Durham region, an agency that strives to break the cycles of poverty, abuse, neglect and powerlessness for young teenaged parents and their children. The agency I speak of is the Rose of Durham.

Here with us today are Nick Barber, from the board of directors, and Laurel Hamilton, the executive director of that agency. Thank you very much for coming.

By providing support, counselling and referral services, the Rose of Durham reaches out to the vulnerable teenaged parents and their children from throughout the region of Durham. While adhering to the principles of Children First, the Rose of Durham is committed to filling the needs of these young people, many of whom come from fractured families and have experienced the effects of alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, violence, poverty, illiteracy and social isolation.

The Rose of Durham works in conjunction with virtually every other major social service agency and network in Durham, providing life skills training, educational opportunities and referrals.

The Rose of Durham enjoys the endorsement of the mayors of the towns of Whitby and Newcastle and the city of Oshawa as well as those of my colleagues here from the region of Durham.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to acquaint you and the House with this most valuable of community resources.

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When political leaders offer a blunt message and a simple solution to the financial woes of a province to gain media attention and score political points, they do so at the expense of Sarah McLaughlin and all other vulnerable children in our society.

In a letter to me, Sarah's parents say the following:

"Sarah is a 19-month-old deaf-blind developmentally delayed child. She has infantile spasms which are a severe form of epileptic seizures. Last year she was experiencing 50 to 100 seizures per day. She is also microcephalic, which means her head and brain are smaller than normal, and possibly she is mentally handicapped.

"I do realize the drastic cuts in funding to all the programs; however, I find this totally unacceptable....

"How are parents going to teach their children adequately and cope with the pressure and stress of their needs without any hands-on intervention in their home? We are not looking for babysitting; we are looking for support to help teach our child. She can only see and hear through someone else....

"Nine hours per week is only touching the surface. We are requesting 20 hours per week, which is not really very much when you consider her requirements....

"Mr Bradley, Sarah's seizures are now controlled and with all the added intervention she is progressing and developing. Please help us help our daughter. She has so much potential. Let's not take that away from her. We are striving to help her be as independent and functional as possible. Her life is just as valuable as that of any other child."

Indeed.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This is National Police Week, and I'd like to make a few brief comments. I've been waiting all week for a statement from the Solicitor General acknowledging this important week, but he has failed to comment. I suppose that's not surprising, given the nasty anti-police comments made last year by the Premier's parliamentary assistant and the Premier's own actions and words in implying racist motives to police actions and refusing police officers an audience while at the same time hurriedly meeting with vocal interest groups whenever they called.

Unlike this NDP government and its Liberal predecessors, we in the Ontario Conservative Party are strongly supportive of the thousands of men and women in blue who perform so magnificently day in and day out on our behalf, facing tremendous odds and unbelievable scrutiny. Despite the critical comments emanating from Liberals, NDPers, vocal pressure groups and certain elements in the media, the vast majority of Ontario residents are proud of our police officers and thankful for the outstanding job they do under very difficult circumstances. Congratulations, National Police Week. We're with you. Keep up the good work.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the House of an issue that directly affects 165,000 residents of Ontario: motorcycle safety and awareness.

With each passing year, more and more residents of this province are riding motorcycles or mopeds, but they face a hidden danger, other motorists. Last year alone, 55 motorcyclists and nine passengers were killed on the highways and byways of Ontario, many after colliding with cars and trucks. Add to that number 2,183 injuries to motorcycle drivers and 487 to passengers.

A good number of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented if more motorists were in the habit of looking twice before entering intersections and if more bikers had taken motorcycle safety courses. This is why the Bikers Rights of Ontario, a non-profit group dedicated to responsible motorcycle legislation, wants the province to raise motorcycle safety awareness by declaring May of each year as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.

Two weeks ago, myself and the member for Lincoln, both of us motorcycle enthusiasts, sponsored a bikers' rights rally here at Queen's Park. Many of you will recall the enthusiastic showing of bikers in front of the Legislative Building. Many of these motorcycle enthusiasts signed petitions which have since been presented to the House, petitions asking the province to officially declare May as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.

On behalf of the 165,000 licensed motorcycle riders of Ontario, I would ask that the Premier consider officially proclaiming May as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month throughout the province of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HIGHWAY SAFETY / SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Last week in the House I announced that the government is proceeding with the introduction of a system of graduated licensing for new drivers.

Ce système est une importante initiative qui s'inscrit dans le cadre de la vision du gouvernement. Cette vision rendra les routes de l'Ontario les plus sécuritaires en Amérique du Nord. Aujourd'hui, nous franchissons une étape de plus vers cet objectif.

As Minister of Transportation and on behalf of my colleagues from the ministries of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and Correctional Services I am announcing a six-point integrated safety project using advanced technology to make Ontario's roads safer by reducing speeding and ensuring that all drivers obey our traffic laws.

One unifying theme of these measures I am announcing today is that each uses the most modern technology to ensure that drivers will obey the speed limit on Ontario roads, reducing highway deaths and injuries significantly.

The six measures include:

-- Photo radar, a system that has been used successfully in other jurisdictions in the United States and in Europe. Photo radar cameras photograph the licence plates of speeding vehicles. Virtually all speeding vehicles are captured by the camera; police are not required to chase speeders. The speeding ticket and photo are then mailed to the vehicle owner.

A six-month photo radar pilot project is set to begin in January 1994. Of course, it will be preceded by a campaign to raise public awareness and change driver behaviour.

-- At the same time, we will begin a pilot project to test in-car computerwork stations in Ontario Provincial Police patrols, linking officers in the field to an integrated telecommunications network.

-- The workstations will be even more effective with the introduction of magnetic stripe, machine-readable drivers' licences in the spring of 1994, which will reduce driver's licence fraud and save administrative time for police.

-- We will rebuild our existing system for collecting and analysing collision data to provide better, more timely information to help us improve the condition and design of our roads and, of course, to help our driver and vehicle programs.

-- A centralized database for collection of fine payments currently being phased in will mean more efficient processing.

-- Finally, we will streamline our court processes to make courts more accessible and more efficient.

Nous savons que la vitesse est un facteur important dans les collisions et aussi dans les décès, et qu'elle constitue les deux tiers des accusations portées en vertu du Code de la route. Un décès sur six est causé par l'excès de vitesse.

In 1991 alone, more than 1,100 people lost their lives on the roads of Ontario. More than 90,000 people were injured due to collision, and yes, Mr Speaker, more than 213,000 accidents took pl