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

November 21, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L126 - Thu 21 Nov 1996 / Jeu 21 Nov 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'ORDRE DES ÉDUCATRICES ET DES ÉDUCATEURS DE LA PETITE ENFANCE DE L'ONTARIO

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'ORDRE DES ÉDUCATRICES ET DES ÉDUCATEURS DE LA PETITE ENFANCE DE L'ONTARIO

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PAEDIATRIC CARE

TVONTARIO

VICTIMS OF CRIME

RENT REGULATION

LATVIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

PAEDIATRIC CARE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SCARBOROUGH CHURCHES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

ENVIRONMENTAL HARMONIZATION ACCORD

RENT REGULATION

ENVIRONMENTAL HARMONIZATION ACCORD

VICTIMS OF CRIME

ENVIRONMENTAL HARMONIZATION ACCORD

RENT REGULATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

RENT REGULATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

OBSTETRICAL CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MINING INDUSTRY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

MARKET ONTARIO

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

EDUCATION

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

BEAR HUNTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LABOUR POLICY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

RENT REGULATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SALE OF AMMUNITION

BEAR HUNTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'ORDRE DES ÉDUCATRICES ET DES ÉDUCATEURS DE LA PETITE ENFANCE DE L'ONTARIO

Mrs McLeod moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 90,

An Act to establish the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators / Projet de loi 90, Loi créant l'Ordre des éducatrices et des éducateurs de la petite enfance de l'Ontario.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to rise today in support of a bill which, for early childhood educators, has been a long time in coming forward. The purpose of the bill, as outlined in the explanatory note, quite clearly is to establish the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators. It's a bill which would require persons who act as early childhood educators in day nurseries or premises where private home day care is provided to hold a certificate of registration issued by the registrar of the college. It would become an offence for a person to act as an early childhood educator without holding a certificate of registration.

I want to note that there is a correction to be made in the explanatory note, because the college would be required to report annually not to the Minister of Education and Training, as stated in the explanatory note, but to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I believe that's an editorial change and can simply be noted in the record and the appropriate change made in the explanatory note of the bill.

I want to note as well that the proposal here is to establish a self-regulating college. The bill proposes that the council would be composed of 12 persons elected by members of the college and nine persons who would be appointed by the cabinet.

The objects of the college would be:

"1. To regulate the profession of early childhood education and to govern its members.

"2. To develop, establish and maintain qualifications for membership in the college.

"3. To accredit professional education programs for early childhood educators offered by educational institutions.

"4. To accredit ongoing education programs for early childhood educators offered by educational institutions and other bodies.

"5. To issue certificates of registration to early childhood educators and to renew, amend, suspend, cancel, revoke and reinstate those certificates.

"6. To provide for the ongoing education of members of the college.

"7. To establish and enforce professional standards and ethical standards applicable to members of the college.

"8. To receive and investigate complaints against members of the college and to deal with issues of discipline, fitness to practise and professional misconduct.

"9. To promote the profession of early childhood education and to communicate with the public on behalf of the members of the college.

"10. To perform the addition functions that the regulations prescribe."

Those are the objects of the college. Again, I think it's important to note that every person who holds a certificate of registration would be a member of the college and that anyone who wishes to act as an early childhood educator would be required to hold a certificate of registration, just as any teacher in our elementary or secondary school system in the province of Ontario is now required to have a teaching certificate.

The larger question is, why is the bill here? It's here because early childhood educators have sought professional recognition through legislation for a very long time. They want, as educators, to be able to set and enforce standards for those who are providing education to our youngest children. They want early childhood education to be recognized as important to the healthy development of children and, because it is so important, to be a field that demands a quality of care.

This bill has been developed in very close cooperation with early childhood educators, a number of whom are in the gallery with us today. In fact the leadership for this initiative has always come from the Association for Early Childhood Education, and I want to acknowledge their effort and their commitment to their profession and to the children whose wellbeing is their concern.

There has been indeed a long history. It began in 1990, when the association created an ad hoc committee to look at the whole issue of self-regulation of the profession. It went on in 1991, when they were given funding by government for a study to look at the feasibility of legislative recognition for early childhood educators.

It went on in 1993 with a study, an extensive survey, in which there was overwhelming support to the extent of over 90% of parents, over 93% of early childhood educators, members of the association, and 76% of early childhood educators who were not members of this association, all of whom believed there should be a registration process for early childhood educators and there should be support for standards of practice and for greater accountability.

The work of the association went on in 1994 to do even further studies to ensure there would be support for the establishment of this kind of college. I think it's important to make the statement that effort has been made to get support of people who are out in the field, both the parents whose children are being placed in the care of early childhood educators and the early childhood educators themselves.

It is a fact, of course, that in establishing such a college, a self-regulating college would also be self-funding. So it both sets standards and requires a financial contribution on the part of members in order to keep it going. The commitment of people in early childhood education to setting standards, to being accountable, is so great that there is overwhelming support even for the financial contributions that would be necessary in order to establish the college.

This bill is also a follow-up to a private member's resolution presented in 1994 by Charles Beer, a former member of this Legislature and a former Minister of Community and Social Services. His resolution called for the professional regulation of early childhood educators through

an act such as this which would establish minimum entry standards, standards of practice and a code of ethics. It was debated and passed in June 1994 with the unanimous support of members of all three parties.

Mr Cam Jackson, who was the community and social services critic for the Conservative Party at the time, indicated: "We had unanimity, we had agreement.... The work of early childhood educators is of a very, very high quality and they need the authority to make it even better...as a regulatory body, they can discipline those members who act out." I trust the support that was expressed by Mr Jackson in his role as Conservative critic of community and social services will be reflected in the support again of all members of the House as this resolution takes the next step of being presented in legislative form.

Mr Beer's resolution recognized that there are no formal entry standards for early childhood education beyond the ECE diploma. Early childhood educators believe very strongly that there should be a consistency in the training of early childhood educators and that high standards should be set for graduation. They see continued professional development as essential for their continued competence. The college would set the standards for graduation and ongoing professional education in early childhood education.

Mr Beer's resolution also recognized that there are at this time no formal standards of practice, no mechanisms to ensure that early childhood educators are held responsible for their professional misconduct. There is, for example, a legal requirement, as we're all aware, that outright physical abuse of children be reported to a child welfare agency, but there is no requirement that inappropriate treatment of children be reported. In fact, there's no one to report such inappropriate treatment of children to.

There was a case of children in one nursery school who were being disciplined through physical isolation. They were being locked in a closet. That kind of inappropriate behaviour simply would not meet a code of conduct test. I trust that such a situation is a very rare occurrence, but I think the capacity to deal with them is absolutely essential for the wellbeing of children.

The college we're proposing would set standards for a code of conduct and would have the capacity to discipline those whose behaviour does not meet that code. The act will bring greater accountability as well as higher standards of quality into early childhood education.

I think it's important as well to point out that this act establishing a college for early childhood educators is complementary to the Day Nurseries Act. It doesn't replace the ministry's role in administering that act, it doesn't replace the ministry's responsibility for ensuring that standards are in place; its role under the Day Nurseries Act is limited to the licensing of facilities, inspecting them and revoking licences when standards aren't met. The Day Nurseries Act doesn't give the ministry power to act to enforce standards for individual professionals. That would be the responsibility the college would undertake as a self-regulating body.

I stress that this is not in any way an end run around government. That's why I hope it will have the support of all members of the House today. Any regulations passed under this act that relate to standards, codes of conduct, the definition of misconduct, the accreditation of educational programs could only be made with the approval of cabinet and with the prior review by the minister. As I've said, the college would be self-funding, so there would be no cost to government.

Some might wonder how we can afford to set high standards for early childhood education. Is it not already difficult to provide enough spaces for children who need them and pay child care workers a decent wage? The answer, clearly, to both questions is yes, it is difficult. But the response must not be, "Well then, let's forget about quality care." We cannot accept anything less than quality care for our youngest children.

The cost of quality care and the challenge of making care accessible and affordable, large as those issues are, are not the focus of this bill. This bill is concerned with standards and accountability. I believe if we're not prepared to set high standards of care for our young children we are jeopardizing their wellbeing and their futures. They need our protection and our commitment to the quality of care they receive, as do their parents. I believe this bill is a step forward in providing that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I'm going to take a few minutes to comment on this legislation. Our critic for child care, Frances Lankin, will be taking the majority of the time.

I want to start by saying that I have no problem; I support the concept of a College of Early Childhood Educators. I just have a couple of points that I think the Leader of the Opposition will understand I would be making this morning based on a couple of positions the Liberal Party has taken in the last several months.

I believe the professions of educators should have a college. The teachers have one. But I'm getting pretty frustrated with the party to my right when one day they take one position and another day they take another position. If you believe in a college to be established for early childhood educators, which I believe in, why did you come in here and vote against the College of Teachers? Where is the consistency? How can there be any consistency?

I've taken a look at your legislation, Mrs McLeod, and I've taken a look at the makeup of the council. One of the things you tried to oppose in the College of Teachers was the makeup of the council. The makeup of the council in your proposed college does exactly the same thing as the makeup of the college in the College of Teachers.

Interjections.

Mr Cooke: Yes, it does, and you know it does. What I'm frustrated about is that when the Royal Commission on Learning came down, the Liberal Party opposed a program for three-year-olds, or expressed reservations about the program for three-year-olds. You endorsed the College of Teachers. Then as soon as there was opposition by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, you decided you were going to play politics with kids by opposing the College of Teachers and opposing protection of students.

I understand the position of early childhood educators, that they want to be recognized and should be recognized as a profession, but college legislation is not to recognize a group as a profession; it's consumer protection legislation. And that consumer protection legislation is essential for young people. It's essential for young people whether they're in day care centres or whether they're in our elementary and secondary school system. A College of Teachers is essential for early childhood educators, but it's also essential for elementary and secondary school teachers.

For you to have come in here and voted against the College of Teachers on second reading, on third reading, to have voiced support of it when it came in from the royal commission, to actually have had a question in the House at one point by your education critic after the implementation committee had reported saying to the Minister of Education and Training, "When are you going to bring in the legislation?" and then he brings it in exactly in line with the recommendations from the implementation commission, you opposed it for one reason.

You opposed it because some of the teacher unions opposed it and you wanted to score political points. You bring this in today because you want to score political points.

If I was an early childhood educator, I would say to myself, "Does this mean there will actually be support from the Liberal Party if the government moves with the bill?" And my answer would be, "Only if the political wind is blowing in that direction will the Liberal Party support it."

I also want to say to early childhood educators that I guess I would believe there was more of a commitment from the Liberal Party to early childhood education if today we were debating a resolution from the Liberal caucus demanding that the Liberal Party in Ottawa fulfil its commitments on early childhood education. If the federal Liberals did that and if that was the resolution here, I think it would be much more meaningful, it would be much more from the heart, and it would have a heck of a lot more meaning than this particular bill which I am upset about because of the inconsistency and the politics involved.

I'll be voting in favour of it because I've been consistent in my support for protection for young people through colleges, whether it's the College of Teachers or whether it's this proposal. I just wish the Liberal Party had been consistent.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to comment briefly on private member's Bill 90,

An Act to establish the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators. I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this matter to our attention today because it deals with one of our most precious resources: our children.

This bill establishes the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators, requires persons who act as early childhood educators in day nurseries or premises where private home day care is provided to hold a certificate of registration issued by the registrar of the college, and makes it an offence for a person to act as an early childhood educator without holding a certificate of registration.

It also requires the registrar to keep a registry of certificates of registration and requires the college to hold annual meetings of its members and report annually to the Minister of Education and Training, with the minister having supervisory control over the college, and gives the college broad powers to make regulations subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and with prior review by the minister.

Our government believes that modern Ontario families need a variety of child care supports to allow them to fulfil modern obligations, including raising children, working and participating in public life. We also believe all children should have access to child care services regardless of family income or their parents' employment status. As well, parents should have the right to determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.

To that end, you are no doubt aware that the Minister of Community and Social Services is currently examining the recommendations of Improving Ontario's Child Care System, the report that could see more quality child care options for parents and thousands of newly subsidized spaces for children.

The proposed direction for Ontario's child care system includes reallocating funding to create thousands of subsidized child care spaces; maintaining tough provincial standards; improving enforcement and licensing procedures and allowing subsidies for a wider range of quality programs for school-aged children; redesigning and expanding the licensed home child care sector; and a simplified income test to better determine who qualifies for a fee subsidy and to focus resources on those families most in need.

Our government is spending up to $600 million in 1996-97 on child care, the highest level in Ontario's history, because children are a priority of this government.

I support private member's Bill 90 in principle because child care should be of high quality and properly regulated to reflect the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.

While I do support this private member's bill in principle, I would be remiss if I failed to mention some of the concerns I have about legislation that would have a major impact on early childhood education.

In her bill, I'm pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition suggests that this Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators would actually report to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Since there are two types of child care services in Ontario -- private, also referred to as commercial or profit, and non-profit -- I support this change to have the college report to and be accountable to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

As well, the definition of "early childhood educator" in the bill is extremely broad and could be interpreted to mean that all staff positions in a day nursery must be filled by ECEs. This could prove to be extremely expensive, very unnecessary and, quite frankly, exceedingly unrealistic. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will take the constructive criticisms and proposed amendments under serious consideration.

The Day Nurseries Act clearly sets out minimum standards for the physical facility,

schedule and operation of a child care program, but there are no safeguards in place with respect to standard practices and the ethical behaviour of the staff who operate these programs and provide care for children and families.

Having said that, I will be supporting private member's Bill 90 in principle because I want to protect the children and families of Ontario and increase the quality of care and education for young children.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm very proud to stand in support of this bill today, but before I make my comments I'd like to make a couple of comments to the member for Windsor-Riverside with regard to not me as Rick Bartolucci, Liberal MPP, but to me as Rick Bartolucci, a teacher for 30 years, just to let him know or to reaffirm in his own mind that he's absolutely correct. The teachers did not support the College of Teachers for any other reason than to say that they at no time had any trust that it was a self-regulating organization or body. He's correct when he says we didn't buy into it.

It wasn't political. It was because he didn't trust teachers enough, he didn't trust that teachers could regulate themselves, and so he tried to make it a partisan body. That's why the teachers of Ontario rejected David Cooke and the NDP. That's why they'll continue to reject that concept: because teachers want to be trusted.

Let me continue just a little bit to say that when the member for Windsor-Riverside suggests that this bill is simply consumer protection, that's an insult. That's an insult to early childhood educators who are in the audience and who are at their day care settings or at their school settings. That's an absolute insult. This is so much more than consumer protection. Let me tell you what it is.

The term "early childhood education," for the former Minister of Education, refers to a group setting intended to effect and affect developmental growth in children from birth to those entering the first year. Some studies indicate that should be increased to year three but, regardless, we're talking about the early years of the child. It is during these years that those people who are committed to these early years form the foundation for future learning, form the foundation for growth in learning, form the foundation for love of learning.

These are the building-block years during which a child learns to walk, to talk, to establish and develop a personality and many of the key tools he or she will use in the world that he or she will experience until death.

The members across the way don't understand children, because they wouldn't support their government agenda, but the early childhood educators in the audience do. They know that children have to feel secure. They know that children have to be affirmed. They know that children have to be provided with opportunities for success. They know that children have to experience stability. That's what this college is all about: ensuring that happens in the future.

The members across the way consider early childhood educators to be babysitters, and they should be perceived as so much more than babysitters. That's why they have to be organized. That's why they want to be regulated. These people are trained professionals. They are trained professionals who are being trusted with one of the most crucial stages of a child's development. As far as I'm concerned, in my 30 years of education, it's the most crucial stage of a child's development. The careful nurturing or the destructive influences to which a child is exposed at this stage can affect the child throughout his or her entire life.

Standards and accountability -- what early childhood educators want from this bill -- are long overdue in this area: standards to provide opportunities for children to develop an understanding of self and others which are characterized by warmth, caring, respect and the appreciation of individuality; standards which will provide excellence in the learning process, to experience a variety of developmentally appropriate activities which pursue their interests in the context of life in the community and the world around them; standards which promote the concept that families are the principal influences in their lives and that they, as secondary educators, want to enhance the importance and the love found within a family; standards which promote that the needs of individual children are to be met and which maintain excellent, positive interactions between all children, regardless of abilities or disabilities, regardless of strengths or weaknesses, regardless of race, colour or religion.

That's what this bill is all about. It's not about partisan politics. It's not about establishing anything else except a very profound position that early childhood educators deserve the right to self-regulation. Certainly that didn't happen with the College of Teachers. It didn't happen when the NDP introduced it and it didn't happen when this government took over that false concept about not trusting teachers.

I see the member for Nepean waving like an idiot. I just want him to know that you can be in the centre and be very progressive as opposed to the right and being very retarded in the direction the province is going.

In many areas of our lives where we must trust others with something that is important to us, whether that be our health or our legal matters, we count on a certain level of professionalism. Where there are regulating bodies in place it is easier to instil such a trust. Early childhood educators recognize that by adopting a regulating body, they can increase their profile as professionals and improve the level of trust that parents must have in them, given the economic and fiscal situation of this province.

That's why it's crucial that we support this bill today. Currently, there are no regulating bodies for early childhood educators. There are no formal structures regulating the type and extensive training received and no assurances that standards and skills will be of the highest quality.

This is the legislation that will enshrine that. This is the legislation that will protect that. This is the legislation that will ensure that the creation of a professional regulating body will not only be good for early childhood educators, it'll be good for the charges that these early childhood educators are responsible for. They are not afraid of high standards that a college will impose; nor were teachers. They are not afraid, because they understand that their primary concern, their raison d'être is the positive development of children.

In conclusion, all I want to say is that I commend the early childhood educators of this province for wanting to establish a college for self-regulation. I know, having worked with them for 30 years, that they will entrust this responsibility in a very, very mature, caring and loving way, the way teachers would have had the government of the day, the New Democratic Party, and the present government, the Conservative Party, trusted teachers. I cannot see how anyone in this assembly can vote against this bill today.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to indicate that I will be supporting this bill on second reading. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. There are some areas of concern, but I think those would be appropriately dealt with through committee hearings and allowing people to come forward and have input into the shape of the bill. But the basic direction of the bill, to move towards self-regulation of the early childhood educators as a profession and to move towards the establishment of a college, are two principles I support.

I just have to take 30 seconds, maybe a bit more, to say how amusing I find it to hear the member for Sudbury, on behalf of the Liberal Party, try and defend yet again the amazing feats of flip-flop that party is capable of -- quite, quite amazing.

For him to say the issue was whether the government of the day and/or the previous government that brought forward the proposal for a College of Teachers trusted teachers, that there was an issue of trust -- what it boils down to is what kind of role the public has with respect to self-regulated professions.

Interjections

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury, I'd ask you to withdraw those comments, please.

Mr Bartolucci: Which one of them would you like me to withdraw?

The Acting Speaker: I ask you to withdraw them.

Mr Bartolucci: I'm asking, which one would you like me to withdraw?

The Acting Speaker: To withdraw your comments.

Mr Bartolucci: I will withdraw that comment.

Ms Lankin: I was saying that the issue described as whether there is trust of a profession is the composition of the college and the participation of members of the public with respect to the self-regulation of professions.

Having spent a significant amount of time as Minister of Health dealing with regulated health professions and shepherding that legislation through, and having some of the similar debates and arguments with professions at that point in time, and holding very tough to the principles I believed in terms of increase of public participation on those colleges, it's a fundamental participation-of-the-public principle that I believe in and would support, and would support for all colleges. So I find the member for Sudbury's characterization of this amusing but not unexpected.

However, let me turn to the bill at hand. The bill at hand is incredibly important in terms of the next step of development of the early childhood educators as a profession. But I have to say it comes at a time which is very unfortunate. It comes at time when the government of the day is about to take steps which will lead to the total dismantling of the not-for-profit, quality, licensed child care system, and I think that is a shame. I think it is a crime. We have spent so many years building this system, and I will say that it's not perfect, there's more that needs to be done, but in the exact opposite direction than the government of the day is proposing.

I listened to the member for Durham-York, who said that the government's reform proposals were about, for example, reallocating funds to increase the number of subsidized spaces. I have to tell you up front that I find the proposals for child care reform that have been released by the Minister of Community and Social Services in that document one of the most deceitful documents I have ever seen a government put forward. No rhetoric here. I'm absolutely direct with you in terms of how dishonest the proposals are in terms of what they purport to be and what the actual impact will be.

The reallocation that the member talks about is the removal of direct wage subsidies from early childhood educators' salaries. I wonder how, if we actually were able to succeed with this legislation, early childhood educators would be able to pay the professional fees for the college to operate. Many of these people in the profession are currently working at an average of about $20,000 a year. These are for highly trained professional educators, being paid $20,000 a year, and they're about to lose, on average, $4,000 to $5,000 a year out of their salary. That is an absolute crime.

The reason the direct subsidy was there in the first place was because the only alternative to that, the only other way to bring up the wages of this poorly paid professional group, is to raise parents' fees. And in raising parents' fees you do only one thing: You ensure that the vast majority of working parents will not be able to afford to have access to quality, not-for-profit, licensed child care.

You will continue to provide subsidies for low income, they will have access, and people who have the financial wherewithal to pay at the high-income end will have access, but the vast majority of working parents would not be able to afford to access that kind of quality, licensed, not-for-profit child care if these wage subsidies are removed and you attempted to continue to try and pay half-decent wages to these qualified, educated educators.

When I talk about it being deceitful, what the member says and what the minister says is that they're going to take that money, the money they pull out of the pockets of qualified educators, and they're going to put it into a pool and they're going to provide a greater number of fee subsidies for low-income parents. Let me tell you, those fee subsidies are currently cost-shared with municipalities on an 80-20 basis, 80% for the province, 20% from the municipality.

There is not a municipality in the province, with all the cuts they've received in their transfers from the provincial government, that has any money to move ahead and pick up more subsidized spaces to create more subsidies. It won't happen. That money will sit there. The member says we're spending $600 million this year on child care, more than has ever been paid before. Not true. They cancelled $50 million of capital for child care, moved $40 million into operating, and then the minister put a freeze on it and not one penny of that new money has been spent.

The member says this is about maintaining tough standards. Excuse me? They're talking about doing away with the standards in the Day Nurseries Act for the physical plant of day centres and putting it under the building code. What does that mean? It means kids can be put into places where there are no windows, where they are there for eight hours a day and there's no natural light.

The minister says it's not important to have fencing around the play yards. What about where you have kids who run off or where you have strangers who want to enter in? It's not important to have fences for safety? What about in northern Ontario? I visited a child care centre in rural Thunder Bay and they have cougar watches and bear watches. They need the fences. This is ludicrous. The basic standards that are to protect the health and safety of our kids are being ripped out by these proposals, and she says this is about maintaining tough standards.

She also says it's about improving enforcement. Again, right now in terms of regulated home care, the home visits occur at a minimum once every three months, and in most agencies they have monthly or bimonthly visits. We have the member over there saying, "We're going to have tougher enforcement." What the minister is proposing is going once a year, and why? Because she said that home child care providers told her these home visits were intrusive. I've not met one regulated home care provider, early childhood educator providing regulated services from their home, who has said that it's intrusive.

They find it a support, they find it an opportunity for professional development, and on and on and on. They support it and they've said to me: "If you find someone who says it's intrusive, that's where you should be monitoring. That's where you should be worrying about the care that kids get."

The bottom line is, the government's proposals are about to dismantle the field at the very time we're talking about the importance of providing a college and providing the kind of structure to make sure the profession can enhance itself and enhance the quality of care.

I support the bill in principle. I hope we get it to hearings. But I would urge the minister to go out and do some meaningful consultation on her proposals because the bottom line is that we won't have a child care system left for early childhood educators to work in if she proceeds as she is wont to do.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this bill today. I want to say that as somebody with two young children -- I've got two young boys myself, five and three -- I think I can speak with some authority as a consumer with respect to early childhood education.

I want to say that in our family, with my wife as well a professional and me working, we really need early childhood educators in our life and we acknowledge the important role that they play in our lives and the importance that they play.

I want to say, though, that I've visited a number of day care facilities in my riding, a couple of which come to mind, and I can tell you that the work that the early childhood educators there do is really the epitome of community spirit and professionalism in what they're able to do for young people in society today. I know the member for Sudbury has been throwing around accusations that somehow the government isn't supportive of this. I can tell you that as a member of the government side, I fully support this particular college and I think it's long overdue.

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He's imputing motive here. I said at the very end that I can't see how anybody could not support this, so I'd ask him to clarify his comments.

The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order. I didn't hear him impute any motive.

Mr Ron Johnson: The member for Sudbury is a little edgy today, I think. It's understandable too, because when you look at the sorts of contradictions he's faced with, it was only a few weeks ago, a number of weeks ago, that the member for Sudbury stood in his place and voted against the College of Teachers. You could see him squirming and you could see the member for Windsor-Sandwich squirming in her seat when the Leader of the Opposition was giving her 10-minute spiel about why this was such an important college, because the bottom line is that the Liberal --

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I had absolutely no problem voting against the College of Teachers. I've been speaking out against it for three years.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Ron Johnson: I'd encourage the member for Sudbury to read his standing orders and realize what a point of order is and is not. I know he's struggling over there with the fact that he's now finding himself in direct conflict with legislation that he wouldn't vote for in the past, and that's understandable.

But at the same time, the back benches over there cleared out because the Leader of the Opposition a number of weeks ago whipped them into shape and said, "Despite your personal feelings, despite the fact that you really want a College of Teachers, you've got to vote against this legislation because," as the member for Windsor-Riverside said, "we need political gains." That's all this is about to them. This is about political gains for the Liberal Party of Ontario. That's all this is.

They really don't care about children. If they really cared about children, they would have wanted to put in place the same accountability mechanisms at the senior school levels and at the regular education levels as they want to put in for early childhood educators. But they didn't want to do that. They didn't want to do it because, as the member for Windsor-Riverside correctly points out, to them it's about politics and it's about using children for political gain. That's really what this is about. They have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see what's best for either early childhood educators or the children who are under their care.

That's where we as a government differ. We are consistent in our message and we are consistent with what we are doing when we look at what we have done as a government for early childhood education, when we look at the fact that we in the previous budget have committed to spending $600 million.

Interjections.

Mr Ron Johnson: We hear the NDP flapping over there, but I've got to tell you, that's $40 million more than the NDP government has ever spent on early childhood education. They're getting all uneasy over there because they like to say over and over again that somehow this government is against children. But we are committed to early childhood educators and the work they do and we're also committed to the children they care for. That is reflected in last spring's budget and in our financial commitments and it's reflected in the fact that I think a number of government members are going to support this particular bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

We look at that and we also look at the good work that the Honourable Janet Ecker had done previous to her new portfolio, when she did a study on early childhood education. We're talking about 12,000 new spots if we move into those reinvestments that are defined in that particular study.

But I want the Liberal leader to do something for me. I'm going to ask a favour. I don't expect her to do it; I'm not that naïve. She doesn't do us favours. But I've got to tell you, I want her to phone up her federal cousins and I want her to find out why her federal cousins have not fulfilled their commitment to the people of this province and this country with the investments they promised the voters in 1993 in terms of early childhood education.

The federal government has turned its nose up at children, has turned its nose up at early childhood educators. They have said unequivocally, "We don't care about children." That is what your federal cousins have said, and I have to tell you, it's absolutely despicable from this side of the House. The people of Ontario deserve better from the federal government and so do the people of this country with respect to early childhood education.

Getting on to Bill 90, which I know this is about, and about establishing the early childhood education teachers' college, I want to say that it's important. I think it's very important that we proceed ahead with this and that we look at putting in place the accountability measures that we can obtain as a result of establishing such a college. I have to say that on the surface, of course, there's nothing wrong with establishing colleges. We've done that with a number of different professions.

We can look at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the colleges of dentists and pharmacists, and of course now the Ontario College of Teachers. I think it's something very important in society.

I agree again with the member for Windsor-Riverside when he says that this in essence is consumer protection legislation. That's what colleges are. They're a regulating body, and at the same time it's consumer protection, because really this is about the kids. This is about providing adequate accountability within the child care sector and I certainly think it's something we need to move forward with.

I do have to say, though, that I have a few concerns about this particular bill and I'd be remiss if I didn't bring them up. As much as I am supportive of the general direction that we're moving in with this, right now in Ontario about half of all the people working in child care are actually early childhood educators. So the concern I have is, what happens to the other half? All of a sudden, do we have to have everybody working in child care, even those who are assistants and aides? Do they now have to be early childhood educators?

I think this bill needs some work and we have to be very careful that we don't create a whole level of bureaucracy and red tape that could be associated with implementing this.

As long as my concerns are ultimately addressed with respect to the red tape bureaucracy issue and the fact that we have to clearly define parameters with respect to membership and how the college will be made up and impact early childhood educators at the working level -- in Brantford we've got some really good day care facilities and about half of the people in those facilities are actually early childhood educators and the other half are assistants and aides. I just want to make sure that this doesn't totally encompass all of them and force everybody in the child care sector to be an early childhood educator, because I think that would be counterproductive.

I want to just conclude by reaffirming my support for this particular bill and saying that, in spite of the Liberal Party and what has really become a laughable Liberal Party, a party that has been back and forth on almost every issue, absolutely laughable -- and I know the member for Sudbury is all itchy over there and he's getting really concerned and standing up on points of order, and that really --

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Mr Ron Johnson: See, here we go again. You see, that really, Mr Speaker, is because --

The Acting Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr Bartolucci: I'm not itchy at all. The member obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. I respect that he has that ability to speak and not know what he's talking about.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr Ron Johnson: Case in point.

I just think, in conclusion, that this is a good bill despite the direction in the Legislature that it came from and I certainly reaffirm my support.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I really am pleased to speak to my colleague's bill this morning. Lyn McLeod has worked for some time in the education field in Thunder Bay, and really that was her grounding that led her into politics and eventually here to Queen's Park many years ago. So I am pleased that she has been consistent. She always has been supportive of children and this is just an extension of that.

Unfortunately, this morning it has really turned into quite a partisan discussion where this bill is one of the few that in fact is as least partisan as possible. It really is something that the whole House hopefully will support, that right across the room we're going to have unanimity when it comes to the vote.

When I listen to the debate around the room -- and in particular I'm always amazed by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, who stands up to talk about the consistency within the Liberal Party.

Now I am pleased to be here in the House, coming from the same community as the member for Windsor-Riverside, because I was in the community when he was the member and when he was the minister, and I was reading the newspapers of many, many groups, all of those who used to bang signs in for the member during an election but whom he wouldn't open the door for when he was the minister, many of the labour groups who wanted to come and speak to our member for Windsor-Riverside and to say: "We really need to talk to you. We have concerns." But Dave Cooke wasn't around. He no longer was listening to them.

That, my friends, was an indication of exactly what the New Democratic Party had done in their term in office and it was so infuriating to be a member of the community and watch that that even I chose to become involved. So it's hardly appropriate for these people now to turn to the Liberal Party. All I want to say, frankly, is pick your target because we've got a much bigger enemy right now and we'll take care of this stuff later. Really, if our member is just trying to get us going in the morning, it has probably worked, as the member for Sudbury has said.

Going back to the bill, the idea of early childhood education for many people who are not involved in the field -- they simply aren't informed to know what a critical role early childhood educators play in the life of a child. In fact most growth for any individual happens in the first three years of life. When early childhood educators actually have intervention to a child at that early stage it makes an enormous difference in the development of the child. Anything that we can do as legislators that means we're going to bring even more quality, even more of a distinction to that group that is teaching our children, is something that all of us in the House must support.

One of the things I knew when I travelled around Ontario and we held rallies trying to ask our government not to cut child care -- I met with mostly early childhood educators and the thing that always impressed me was that they really were concerned about the children, especially for children at risk because they are the ones who need the intervention. In most cases children are identified as being at risk because of the work of early childhood educators. That is how we can get at those kids who need the extra something to level the playing field for them in the rest of their education and in the rest of their development, quite frankly.

I'm more than a little pleased to support the bill because I recognize that it does give that group that professional designation that they require, that I believe they should have, that I believe parents want to see. It also gives the group itself that level of accountability within its own ranks.

I have to make one final comment and that is to the members opposite who talk about their governmental support of child care. Let me say that last year, when our federal cousins were going across Canada to see how they could implement and how they could work with the provinces, it was this Harris government that (1) refused to meet and (2) would not match funds with our federal government moneys available, and that is why Ontario could not participate.

Other provinces in Canada were getting funding for child care, but Ontario did not. The reason why? Because then-Minister Tsubouchi and now-Minister Ecker refused to play with the feds. Instead of worrying about the children and worrying about the numbers, in particular in Metro Toronto, who are doing without very much required spaces, they decided to do the political thing; they decided to fight because they don't have their friends in Ottawa. They refused to work with them. We see that happening issue after issue after issue.

But if you knew that you had to go back to your ridings and say that your Harris government would not match funds with the federal government in order to provide more day care spaces when you come from Kitchener and you know the vast number of people who are looking for the spaces in Kitchener -- I know because I've been there. When you go to Thunder Bay and you realize how many spaces would be required, it's very difficult to turn around now in the House and say that the feds weren't playing games, that the feds didn't want to play and match funds. Ontario in fact refused to come to the table.

I think we need to make that absolutely clear: unfortunately this government does not have children as a priority. It is being seen time and time again that children are simply not a priority with government.

I can tell you that while we were campaigning, and unfortunately didn't win, children always have been a priority with the Liberal Party, whether that be at the federal level or at the provincial level.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure to take

part in this debate. I don't have much time left but I do want to say a few things. I will be supporting Ms McLeod's bill because I think it's the right thing to do. I personally don't think there are many more important people in the educational system than our early childhood educators. Just as I supported the College of Teachers for the elementary and secondary school level, I support it for early childhood educators as well.

It's really strange that a bill such as this, which a lot of people support, brought in by the official opposition, would run into such heavy water on a morning like this. It says something about what has transpired in this place over the last year or so.

As far as the member for Sudbury is concerned, who's usually quite a tranquil fellow and well-spoken, it's as though he woke up today and has a bad hair day. I think he's overreacting to the criticism from this party because all we were trying to point out were the inconsistencies of the Liberal Party when it comes to a College of Teachers, and that is hard for us to understand.

When the provincial government, the Tories, talk about their support, it really does make me almost nauseous, considering what you've done to the child care system in this province.

A pox on both your houses, but a lot of goodwill to the early education teachers of this province.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Fort William has two minutes.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to draw a bottom line in terms of priorities and consistency. Let me restate that the bill I present today follows a resolution that was presented by a member of my caucus two years ago and takes the next legislative step forward. This is the first opportunity I've had to bring to bring forward a private member's bill. I appreciate that neither the current government nor the immediate past government, in spite of their beliefs that this legislative recognition was important, was able to bring this forward. I understand the pressures of legislative agendas.

I felt this was something I could do at my first opportunity, to present a private member's bill which would make a positive contribution to the quality of care our youngest children receive, and I'm appreciative, amidst all the debate, of the fact that this bill will receive support from all parties in the House.

I understand some of the debate that's gone on in terms of wanting to fight the old fight around the College of Teachers. I understand that the members of the New Democratic Party have a principle, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has just expressed, that they wanted to see more lay representation on college boards. I differ from that, consistent in my belief that any college should be a self-regulating college of professionals, and that entails having a majority of professionals on that board. That is an essential part of the bill I present today, from my perspective.

I also happen to believe that professional recognition is an important part of this bill and that it is entirely consistent with consumer protection, as the member for Windsor-Riverside has raised. However, I do not believe that our youngest children are solely consumers. They do not have choices. They do not just need protection. They need our commitment to provide the finest quality of care we can possibly provide.

That is what I believe this bill will do, to ensure that we are not only providing for the protection of children but for the provision of standards that will lead to a higher quality of care. With the commitment the House gives to this bill, I trust the government will take it the next steps.

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

Mr Maves moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Audit Act to improve the accountability of hospitals, school boards, universities and colleges, municipalities and other organizations which receive payments from the government / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics en vue d'améliorer la responsabilisation au sein des hôpitaux, des conseils scolaires, des universités et des collèges, des municipalités et d'autres organisations qui reçoivent des paiements du gouvernement.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I rise today to speak to my private member's bill. The purpose of this bill is to permit the Provincial Auditor to conduct audits, to the extent he or she considers necessary, of organizations, corporations, associations, foundations, institutions and other bodies that receive payments, directly or indirectly, from the consolidated revenue fund, a government ministry or a government agency.

All members of this House realize what an invaluable service the Provincial Auditor provides to us and to all Ontario taxpayers. Since 1978 the Provincial Auditor has been doing value-for-money audits of our government ministries and identifying to us hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, abuse and inefficiency.

For instance, the auditor spoke out about a previous government's poor accounting practices which hid from public view the actual size of the province's deficit. The auditor revealed waste and abuse in the old Jobs Ontario program. More recently the auditor revealed that there was still fraud and inefficiency within the social assistance system, a navy in the Ministry of Environment and a disturbing level of overprescribing of drugs within the Ontario drug benefit program.

All governments in the past may have been somewhat embarrassed by these revelations but also appreciative, as each would soon after set out to rid the province of the revealed waste and abuse. Taxpayers have been very well served by the Office of the Provincial Auditor. This act simply seeks to expand the types of organizations the Provincial Auditor can audit to continue to assure taxpayers that their dollars will be spent efficiently and appropriately.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario funds, through ministries, over 7,000 governing bodies for many different types of organizations. The functions of these organizations can vary from providing high-level policy advice to directly providing services to Ontarians. Historically about half the government's annual expenditures are spent by these separately governed organizations. For the year ending March 31, 1996, about $28 billion, or 48% of government funds, was spent by separately governed recipients.

The principal recipients of these grants were colleges, universities, hospitals, municipalities, school boards and many agencies funded by various ministries. The payments made to these bodies are typically conditional. These conditions may require adherence with certain legislation or that these payments be used cost-effectively and for specified government purposes only.

Currently the Provincial Auditor can only conduct inspection audits of these organizations. The definition of an inspection audit is extremely restrictive in that it permits the auditor to look at accounting records only. What this means is that the auditor can look at an organization and say that, yes, they were granted a certain amount of money and that their financial receipts confirm that they received and spent the money. The auditor cannot investigate any further to determine if the money was spent effectively, efficiently and economically.

By way of example, an organization could obtain $1 million of funding to spend on computers. Upon inspection, the financial records would show that they spent $1 million on computers, but if the computers didn't work, an inspection audit would not tell us that,

whereas a value-for-money audit would.

The aforementioned revelations of abuse and inefficiencies brought to light over the years would not have been uncovered if the Provincial Auditor had only been able to conduct inspection audits of these ministries.

Conversely, the value-for-money audit is much more exhaustive. Generally, a value-for-money audit includes appraising whether money was spent with due regard to economy and efficiency, whether satisfactory procedures were established to measure and report on the achievement of intended results of programs and whether money was spent for the purposes for which it was intended.

We currently hold up our own ministries to this intensive level of scrutiny and accountability. There is no reason why all of the transfer recipients receiving taxpayers' dollars should not be held to the same level of scrutiny and accountability.

The Provincial Auditor's 1996 annual report says: "A better accountability framework is necessary for the effective management of government finances, spending and resources. Such a framework, especially if anchored in legislation, would provide a better means for the Legislature to assess whether all funds have been and are being spent...for the intended legislative purpose."

I do not think there is a member in this House who would not like to see tax dollars spent more responsibly and agencies made more accountable with respect to the conditions attached to any funding.

Since 1990, members from all three parties on the public accounts committee have been in favour of expanding the Provincial Auditor's authority to do value-for-money audits of grant recipients.

In 1992 the member for Nickel Belt, at the time the province's finance minister, wrote to the Chair of the public accounts committee and said, "As I have said in the past, I support any proposed amendments which will allow the Provincial Auditor's office to continue their important role in ensuring that value for money continues to be received for all government expenditures."

More recently, in November 1995, the Liberal member for Lawrence urged the government to "make the amendments necessary to the Audit Act so the auditor could go in and audit some of these transfer payment recipients."

As you can see, this bill's intent has had all-party support since 1990 and continues to have all-party support.

It is imperative for decision-makers in this province and elsewhere in the country to be provided with reliable information so they can assess each government program or payment and whether it should continue as is, be modified or be discontinued.

The Audit Act in its current form came into effect in April 1978 and gave the auditor the ability to do inspection audits of grant recipients. Initially the auditor conducted inspection audits only on an exception basis, where evidence from ongoing ministry review and agency audits indicated that such audits were advisable.

Between 1984 and 1991 the office expanded audit activity to include the major recipients of government grants. Several audits were conducted in each of the community college, university, hospital and school board sectors. The university and hospital communities were sufficiently concerned about just inspection audits that they proceeded to get legal opinions about the authority and scope of these audits. These legal opinions are proof that the act as defined in its current form does not provide the scope necessary to carry out anything more than a very limited financial audit which does not allow for a sufficient amount of accountability.

Yesterday I received a letter from the chief operating officer of the Ontario Hospital Association which objected to allowing the Provincial Auditor to undertake value-for-money audits in hospitals. The claim is that the Ministry of Health has appropriate accountability structures in place for hospitals. To that argument, I say that we, the members of this assembly, have asked the Provincial Auditor to be our watchdog of these very same ministries which are supposed to be watchdogs of these transfer organizations.

If we believe that the taxpayers deserve an independent auditor to look into the spending practices of the ministries, then how could we not, by extension, believe that an auditor is also needed to periodically look into the spending practices of the agencies that these ministries give money to?

The Provincial Auditor has told me and said publicly many times that he is a servant of the members of this House. A major part of our job when we are elected by the taxpayers is to make sure that their dollars are spent properly, to make sure that they are indeed getting value for their money. The Provincial Auditor tells us directly, without any middleman, with no bureaucratic bafflegab to get lost in, whether or not we are receiving value for the money we vote to spend. To leave this function entirely to the career civil service in these cases would be an abdication of our responsibility.

As mentioned above, the universities and hospital communities have in the past hired law firms to make sure the Provincial Auditor could not come into their institutions to conduct value-for-money audits. Well, this action is very disturbing. Public institutions have used public funds to hire lawyers in order to keep the public from being able to determine whether their money was being spent properly. When hospitals and universities are so nervous about the Provincial Auditor doing value-for-money audits of their institutions, it reinforces the belief that there indeed is a need for the auditor to conduct such audits.

This is really a fairly straightforward matter. Institutions and organizations in this province which receive substantial sums of taxpayers' dollars should be subject to full audits by the watchdog for the people, the Provincial Auditor. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of this House will see the public good in this bill and support its passage.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm pleased to add my voice to the bill here today. I'm going to support it, not that the bill does a great deal for the people of Ontario but because it's practically redundant. The actions of the government that we have seen in the past year or year and a half already give the government, the various ministers, every power that they want to look, open, audit any book in Ontario where the government is giving agencies, hospitals or school boards funds. Perhaps this is another way for the government to grandstand, to try to grasp a little bit of the public's attention.

I think what the government is trying to do with the introduction of bills such as this one here is that for the next couple of years or so they will be trying very desperately to undo what they have been doing over the past year or year and a half. I think what we will see in the next couple of years is a government that will be scrambling to undo the damage they have done with their irresponsible bills, laws if you will, that they have so utterly imposed upon the people of Ontario.

We have a government that keeps on saying, "We want less government, we want to eliminate bureaucracies, we want to eliminate red tape," and here we go and create another layer of bureaucracy.

Interjection: It's already there.

Mr Sergio: It's already there. Well, you see, it's already there. If it's already there, what do we need on top of that? Do we need more on top of that? Certainly not. I'll tell you, there are no better agencies than local municipal governments, which are run more efficiently than any other agency where the government has their fingers in it.

The Minister of Health has the power to eliminate totally the hospital boards, for example. They can put in their own man or men and do whatever the heck they want. They don't have to do this. This is not needed. Why do they do it?

The government tends to run their business in the normal way they have started since the last election: suggest some actions without saying why, what for. Do we have a problem with some school boards? Do we have a problem with some municipalities? Do we have a problem with some agencies where the government has been giving them money? Why don't they give us the needed information, the tools, and say: "You know what? We have a problem with funding hospitals, funding local municipalities. We have a problem here." Show us the problem. Let the public know what they're intending to do.

Their real intent is not that, because if they showed us, they would show the people of Ontario that by introducing this new law, they would be bringing less government, more efficiencies in those particular agencies, such as school boards, hospital boards and so forth, and would make it more effective. This is the same with all the other bills the government has introduced where they said, "This is what we want to do." But, heck, they don't tell us why they want to do that. So please tell us before we go to the people of Ontario and say, "We want to have another audit, because the auditing for accounting records doesn't do."

If they have a problem giving funds to particular agencies, they shouldn't be giving funds in the first place. But when we are talking school boards, hospital administrations, municipalities, I have a problem. As I said, it doesn't do anything because the powers being requested are already there. I see it as a redundancy.

When we are saying we want to have a further audit, a value-for-money audit, what does it really mean? Is it that now we are creating another body to oversee the minute receipts of a particular government agency or hospital board? What does the government create when we are trying to impose the government's will, if you will, on another agency? Are we going to send those agencies underground to hide things? Is this what the government's thinking of doing? Certainly not.

I only have a few minutes. As I said, I have already committed myself to supporting the bill because it doesn't do a heck of a lot to change things. But I cannot understand it. The government is cutting here, is cutting there, and then you say: "We want to do more. We want to have audited some of those agencies we are trying to assist." So what does the government want to do? Do they want more cuts, less service, more responsibilities, more accountability? Do they want more efficiencies? The government should tell us, tell the people of Ontario, how they can accomplish that.

One thing I would like to say especially is on behalf of the local municipalities. There is no other level of government more open, more accountable, than the local level of government. Every particular department is scrutinized not only by the local council but the provincial government and auditors as well. What is the real reason, then, for the government to bring forth another bill like this? It is certainly to take the responsibility away from those agencies. It is to divert the real responsibility of the government and not to pull the wool over the eyes of those agencies that are doing a good job.

As I have said, I have a few minutes. I'm going to support the bill, but the power the government wants, it already has.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Before I tell the members opposite which way I plan to vote on this bill, I just want to go through some of what I think the bill will do and then sum up at the end by trying to let you know where I'll be voting on this.

What comes to my mind when I read this bill is that what he wants to do on the surface looks to be okay. He's saying, "Let's extend the provincial powers of the auditors" -- the auditors of the Provincial Auditor -- "to go out and audit municipalities, audit school boards, audit provincial agencies which receive money, and to make sure that the dollars taxpayers are giving to these other agencies are properly spent."

When I hear that kind of discussion going on and I see this legislation come forward, is the member suggesting that municipalities, school boards and hospitals are not accountable already? Is the member across the way saying that the municipalities across this province are wasting taxpayer dollars to such a degree that there is large concern and the provincial government has to reach into the municipalities and put its heavy hand on the backs of the councillors and the mayors of the cities and towns across this province to make sure they're doing their job right?

As a member representing a constituency with three municipalities, namely, Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson, those particular organizations, I would say, are very responsible about how they spend taxpayers' dollars. If I look at what Mayor Power has done in the city of Timmins, what Mayor Graham has done, what they've done out in the town of Matheson, I have never seen examples to cause me to be concerned that they're wasting taxpayers' dollars. They are the local level of government. They are the closest government to the people they represent.

If they do something inappropriate or that the public doesn't like, they're the first ones to find out. The municipal politicians, I find, tend to take their jobs fairly responsibly and people take their concerns to them fairly quickly.

Is it that the government wants to put its hands on the back of every mayor and every councillor across the province to make sure they're doing its bidding, doing things the way the provincial government wants things done? Is that really what we're trying to do here? If that's the case, I would not vote for this bill.

If the government is saying, "We think we can do things more efficiently by finding a different way of doing audits to municipalities, to school boards and hospitals across this province in a way that saves taxpayers some dollars," maybe then I'd support it. But it seems to me that the government, through this bill, through a private member's bill, is not putting its money where its mouth is, quite frankly, and it's quite contrary to everything else they're doing as government legislation.

If you watch what the government has been doing around the who-does-what-to-whom exercise, the whole purpose of that is to say: "Let's remove duplication from the various levels of government. Where you've got municipal governments and you've got regional governments and the province doing things jointly, let's clearly give the responsibility to one." That's something our government, under the New Democratic leadership of Bob Rae, had already started; actually, some of that started under the Liberal government as well.

Is what the government is doing with this bill to say, "We will remove the requirement from municipalities and others to audit themselves, and we will send the auditor in to do that instead"? I think the member needs to be clear about what direction the government wants to take on this particular bill.

First of all, I want to say this outright so there's no question in anybody's mind where I'm coming from on this. I support in general that there's public accountability. I haven't got a problem with that. Where I've got a problem is that the tone of this bill, along with the actions of the government this far, if I were a municipal alderman or on a hospital board, would say that I'm not doing my job right and I'm unaccountable and that the province has to come in and has to look over my shoulder to make sure I'm doing things right.

I say to the member across the way, who just got elected in 1995, I want you to recognize that there are already mechanisms within the province that your government has and which those agencies must adhere to that do make sure there is a good accountability about how taxpayers' dollars are spent. If you take a look at school boards, for example, and municipalities, they have to put their books out to the public every year through an auditing process. They don't spend taxpayers' dollars out in the dark. They strike their budgets, as the province does.

Then, once they've decided how their budget is going to be spent, they go out through their administration and spend the money they're entrusted to spend and carry on the services of the school board, and at the end there is an accountability process that happens.

That the Provincial Auditor should have a duplicate role of going in after they've already been audited to do it all over again to make sure that proper policy has been followed, because I think that's what you're talking about here, I say is wrong. It is not the job of the auditor to determine what public policy should be and how it's being followed. His job, I think, should be restricted to what he's doing within the provincial realm and leave those parts to the municipalities.

The other thing is that the member would remember there was a bill that came before this House, oh, I think it was about November, about this time last year. It was called, as Speaker McLean referred to it, the ominous bill, or the omnibus bill, Bill 26. In that particular bill your government extended your powers as ministers and as cabinet to do much of what you're talking about doing in this bill.

For example in hospitals, because of Bill 26 a Minister of Health is able to take a whole board of a hospital and put them under administration and say, "We don't give a tinker's dam what the people in the city of Timmins have to say about how their hospital is run." If the minister disagrees with the decisions being made by the board of the Timmins and District Hospital, or Bingham hospital, or Anson General, he can appoint his or her trustee, who would then go in and take over the entire running of the hospital.

It seems to me you've got far-sweeping, draconian powers as it is, to be able to tell the people of this province how you want their dollars spent, without having to come in with this particular bill.

I'm trying to say here, in closing off that part, that I find this somewhat intrusive. I agree with and support without any difficulty the ability to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are being spent wisely and are being spent according to the public policies we set forth in our Legislature, as are set forth at municipal and school board levels. I want to make sure that at the end there's an accountability and I have no problem with that. I will support the bill under that premise, but I want to tell the member right up front that I have some grave concerns about what he is really talking about under this bill.

It is a tradition in this Legislature -- this has not happened since the Tories have taken power, but normally we afford to private members the opportunity to have their bills passed at second reading, give them an opportunity to see the light of day at a committee, then make a decision. In the spirit of what this House is all about I will vote in favour of this bill, but I want to say there are some real questions.

On the question the member raises in regard to value-for-money audits, I just want to let you know I sat on public accounts before you were here, and there was not unanimity within the committee in regard to allowing the Provincial Auditor to have value-for-money audits. It was put forward by Mr Peters, our public auditor, and it echoed through members of your caucus and the Liberal caucus, that we do value-for-money audits on things.

I say now what I said back then: Yes, you want public accountability, but there are times when the provincial government is going to spend money on a program or service to a community that is far in excess of what is being spent in another community. Sometimes there are good reasons for that. As I said in public accounts, and if you go back and look at Hansard you'll find the comment, if you go into Attawapiskat or Chapleau or Calstock, it may cost a lost more money to provide a certain service for the citizens within that community. It might be quite a bit more expensive.

If we run a hospital in some of those communities the costs are quite a lot higher because of all kinds of reasons, from geography to isolation to not being able to take advantage of certain services that would normally be available in a community that the hospital has to do itself. Therefore we sometimes spend more money, but there is a good reason for that. As a matter of public policy we as legislators and as people in this province say it is important that people, no matter where they live in this province, have a certain level of service that is available to them as its citizens.

If you move to value-for-money audits according to the way Mr Peters had echoed it at the public accounts committee when I was there, a case could be made that you would not offer certain services in particular communities because political hay could be made with how much the price for those items is. For example, a school expenditure in the community of Attawapiskat up on the James Bay coast is much more expensive per pupil than it would be, let's say, in the city of Timmins, but there's a good reason that. It's much more expensive for all kinds of reasons. Often teachers don't even come from the home community, and you're going to spend more dollars per student.

When some political opportunists of the right wing would stand up and say, "Look at how much money we're spending on Attawapiskat, look at how much money we're spending in Timmins, and is this ever terrible," the public might accept the argument just on the surface, not recognizing there are reasons why we're spending more money in Atawapiskat. There are community and social conditions that we must take into account. In a community like Attawapiskat you would have to bring into the school a whole component around native education that you would not have to do in the city of Timmins.

I think that value-for-money audits, although they sound like a good idea, have some dangerous repercussions if the results are taken by political opportunists of the right wing to expose how badly the government is spending money in a particular area where that may not be the case.

Je ne fais pas ceci pour commencer de faire l'agent provocateur. Le gouvernement, jusqu'à date, me démontre qu'ils ont vraiment un appétit, quand il s'agit de pouvoir, pour mettre la main autour et contrôler les services dans la province, même les services pour lesquels ils ne sont pas responsables.

Quand les agences municipales -- les hôpitaux, les écoles et d'autres services -- font des affaires avec lesquelles le gouvernement n'est pas d'accord, on voit beaucoup d'exemples où le gouvernement commence d'envoyer des messages très directs à ces agences en disant, «Écoutez, si vous faites quelque chose contre notre politique, qui nuit au gouvernement conservateur, on va tout d'un coup possiblement enlever votre financement,» comme l'avait dit M me Cunningham à un certain groupe à London.

Je le sais de la part d'un maire dans le nord de l'Ontario qui ne veut pas le dire ouvertement en ce moment, mais il s'est fait dire directement que s'il continuait de faire des bruits contre le gouvernement provincial, il est possible que des demandes de financement avancées par la municipalité pourraient se faire nuire grâce à ses actions. Il y a des soins de santé dans ma communauté où les personnes responsables se sont fait dire très directement par le ministère, et par le bureau du ministre jusqu'à un certain point, que si leur point de vue est négatif, contre la politique du gouvernement, c'est très possible que ça allait nuire à leur financement.

Si cette législation mise de l'avant en était la seule et je ne voyais pas tous les indices que le gouvernement a mis en place jusqu'à date, toutes les actions, peut-être que je n'aurais pas de problème. Mais en vue de toutes les autres affaires, j'ai peur, je crains qu'à la fin de la journée le gouvernement pourra en profiter, que la raison pour le projet de loi ne sera pas suivie et que ce sera plutôt pour l'agenda politique.

In principle I will support the bill. I will give the member the opportunity to have his say in committee, if it comes to committee, to answer some of those questions.

I'd like to thank you very much for my time in the debate.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): It's my pleasure to respond today to my colleague the member for Niagara Falls's private member's bill, the Accountability Improvement Act, which proposes amendments to the Audit Act.

The member for Niagara Falls I feel has brought an important bill designed to improve accountability of previous moneys entrusted to government agencies and transfer partners. The objective of the proposed act is to ensure that these moneys have been used for intended purposes and that activities were carried out in an economic and efficient manner.

Ensuring that public moneys are spent wisely is something that I believe all members of this House support. I would like to thank the member for Niagara Falls for his personal efforts in trying to improve public accountability in this important area and offer my support today for this objective.

The Accountability Improvement Act would allow the Provincial Auditor's office to conduct value-for-money audits of organizations that receive money from the consolidated revenue fund. Few of the public outside of government certainly understand just how much money we are talking about.

The government's expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, totalled $57.1 billion. Of that amount, $40.1 billion was made in the form of transfer payments. These payments supported all types of services to the public, primarily through grants to municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities. It is crucial that taxpayers be assured that their money is being spent wisely. That is why I believe the objective underlying the Accountability Improvement Act is a good one.

This government strongly supports increased accountability. In fact we have already implemented many initiatives, in the past year and a half since we've been elected, to improve and clarify the precision of information that is available to members of this House and to the public.

We have published business plans which the Provincial Auditor recognized as the first step towards improved accountability; we have produced an annual report to present to Ontario's taxpayers, a simplified overview of this province's finances; and we have ended the practice of keeping two sets of books and have reported the province's true fiscal picture. The public can now review the government's plan --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order, please.

Ms Bassett: -- and the reports on actual performance knowing the information in these reports is compiled in a consistent manner.

These initiatives were the result of recommendations made by the Ontario Financial Review Commission, which the government established in the summer of 1995 to review the government's financial practices. We are committed to implementing the commission's recommendations, as the finance minister stated in his 1996 Ontario budget, and we will continue to improve accountability for public resources entrusted to this province.

Another important government initiative already under way is the Who Does What panel, headed by David Crombie. The recommendations of this panel may change the relationship between the government and its transfer payment partners. That may in turn change the scope of how this bill would apply, but it won't change the good idea that it represents and it won't weaken our commitment to public accountability.

This government, as the Provincial Auditor notes in his 1996 annual report, has made significant progress in improving accountability by enhancing the quality of financial information available to the Legislature and through the publication of Ontario's business plans earlier this year. This government intends to continue to improve the accountability to the House and to Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise in the House today to support this bill: a bill of accountability, a bill to better ensure value for money. The little guy, the taxpayer in my riding, can't afford to toss money away. My taxpayers, my seniors, my working poor, need every dollar. Money they entrust to us to spend wisely -- taxes -- must be accounted for. It isn't fair that some groups that receive government money never have to account for it.

The taxpayer, through various government agencies, provides grants and subsidies to many groups. A vast number of these groups have high administration costs. That usually means those in charge are paying themselves pretty impressive salaries. Instead of passing money on to the needy, these groups simply gobble up the money and pay themselves, justifying their actions in the fact that they are talking of helping the poor.

We must ensure that as much of the money as possible goes to charity and not to those who run the charities and foundations. That is why I rise in the House today to support this bill which permits the Provincial Auditor to audit any body, group or association that receives public money from the province or one of its agencies, commissions, boards or foundations.

The private sector must account for funds to its shareholders, to the taxpayer and to its lenders. Public companies have rigid full disclosure requirements. Shouldn't groups that are awarded grants, gifts and subsidies have to account to the donors, the taxpayers?

It has been my experience that the poor get shafted by what I call the poverty industry. This is the large group of people who earn a living as middlemen between those who donate to charities and foundations and those they seek to help. Those who work in the poverty industry talk a lot about the poor, and they pay themselves a lot for doing it.

During the hearings of the standing committee on finance, I witnessed the same legal aid lawyer represent at least two groups. His résumé listed over 50 poverty groups. He was a wealthy man due to the poverty industry. Under the guise of helping the poor, he has flourished.

Hard-earned taxpayers' money is frittered away by uncaring bureaucrats, bureaucrats who dispense money so they have a job, bureaucrats who aren't concerned with the use of the money, just the administrative work of reading the proposal and writing the cheques. The bureaucrats are not really concerned about accountability, but the taxpayers are and I am.

It is incomprehensible for the little guy to fund the poverty industry while not knowing the true results of those expenditures. The little guys in my riding are nice people who, for the grace of God, go they in hardship and poverty, the little guys who have been ripped off and now are getting taken advantage of again. Imagine subsidizing millionaires who take advantage of our compassion for the poor. Imagine subsidizing crazy political movements, some of them violent, at the expense of the poor.

Accountability is what this bill requires: value for money. Salary disclosure should not scare any truly compassionate person who wants to help the poor. This bill will ensure good internal control over taxpayer money. Taxpayer money ought to be spent wiser and better. We've all heard of some charities that have administrative costs exceeding 80% of revenues. I know of one funding recipient which receives $3.6 million from the government and grants $2.8 million. It costs them $800,000 to cut a few cheques. The public, which is paying, has a right to know where its money is going. Full and honest disclosure will ensure this.

Many receiving government money are social activist groups or groups promoting political beliefs. They hide their motives while appealing to our compassion and charity. Instead of giving money to the poor, they promote a political agenda and use the money to pay themselves. This was a growth industry under the previous NDP government. The czars of the give, grant and spend industry sold out the poor after using the poor to extort cash from the public purse.

We're not talking trust, but common sense. This Legislature must be accountable for every dollar it spends, and that includes the money we give to groups, foundations and causes. Let's make sure the money is going to those who really need it. Let's ensure the needy get real help. Let's make certain the needy get real value for the money taxpayers spend.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure as well to rise today to speak in support of Bill 89, standing in the name of my colleague the member for Niagara Falls. I have to say on a personal note that over the past 18 months I've come to know this member quite well, both personally and professionally, and I think this bill is very indicative of this individual's strong views to achieve greater accountability in our public expenditures process. Therefore his sponsorship of this bill comes as no surprise to me, and I congratulate him on that basis.

Bill 89, introduced by my colleague, would amend the definition of "audit" in the act so that the Provincial Auditor may conduct an audit to the extent he or she considers necessary. It would also seek to expand the ability to conduct audits, to the extent necessary, of secondary recipients such as organizations, corporations, associations, foundations and institutions and any other bodies that may receive payments, directly or indirectly, from the consolidated revenue fund.

In my mind, this is an important first step to modernize what I consider to be significant constraints with respect to accountability in auditing in this province. This bill would assist in amending the Audit Act so that the Provincial Auditor is able to determine whether the recipients of these grants and payments have met the conditions of funding.

Again from a personal perspective, I truly believe the constituents of Middlesex and London want to be assured, within reason -- I must emphasize "within reason" -- that our public expenditures are relevant and transparent, but above all accountable, in order that they and all other Ontarians can be assured that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly.

This bill, in my mind, should not be construed, as the member for Yorkview has suggested, as being redundant or as government grandstanding. In a similar vein, and while I respect the comments of the member for Cochrane South, I don't share his concern about the heavy-handedness of this bill. It's truly about getting and introducing accountability into the auditing system of this province.

In the few minutes that I have there is really little opportunity to effectively discuss the rationale between value-for-money versus inspection audits and I think the member sponsoring the bill has adequately done that in his opening remarks.

What I can say is I met with various groups and organizations in my own riding last week. There was a common theme that I've heard from them as they've made various presentations in the context of organizational relationships and reporting mechanisms that affect their organizations. Those words are "relevancy" and "transparency." I believe this is an appropriate expectation on behalf of the public, given the some 48% of government funds that are spent by recipients of government transfer payments. For the year ended March 31, 1996, this translated into approximately $28 billion. I believe this is an appropriate means to address public expectation on this issue.

As we look to page 18 of the annual report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor, it's very evident that there's been considerable discussion around this issue for some time, discussion coming from our own caucus, the Conservative caucus, in A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario in 1992, and readdressed in comments by the Honourable Floyd Laughren when he was serving as Treasurer of the province and Deputy Premier.

I share the viewpoint expressed by the auditor, and that viewpoint is one whereby permitting his office to carry out value-for-money audits of grant recipients who are given government funds to achieve legislative purpose would make his office's services to the Legislative Assembly, to the public accounts committee, and through them to the taxpayers, more comprehensive and more effective.

I certainly concur with the intention of this bill and support it in its entirety. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to it for the few minutes I've had.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I just want to speak for a couple of minutes -- that's all I've got left -- and say that I was impressed by the comments of the member for Cochrane South, although I think I'll be voting differently than he's going to be voting when it comes to the vote on the bill.

I think there are already appropriate audits done in all our public agencies and I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove with this. It might give the Provincial Auditor another photo opportunity out on the 407, which is a very unusual thing for a Provincial Auditor to do, I must add. I was quite surprised that he would be put in that position of taking advantage of such a photo op. But this will perhaps give him more opportunities.

I will be voting against this bill, partly because of the very arguments that the member for Cochrane South used. I ran into a difficulty in my own constituency where I very much wanted a road built to a small community and I had a horrible time convincing not only the bureaucracy but my colleagues of the need for that road because the traffic counts did not justify the expenditures on that road, to have it rebuilt.

It was an isolated community and you could not justify it by the numbers. You could only justify it by the need for that road for the people in that community, a community of about 3,000 people. So I had a terrible time. Finally we ended up doing it but in a fairly, quite frankly, heavy-handed way to get it through. Then it was so late in our mandate that we didn't get it started when the election was called and of course the new government cancelled it. I understand that. I'm not bitter or angry about that. But that was a case where an audit for value would not have justified that road.

You can make the argument that it shouldn't be built, but I think there are other considerations that go into these kinds of decisions, and in that case I felt the road was indeed justified.

So for that reason I shall be voting against this bill.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I will be supporting the bill. I must say this is a topic that was debated in the public accounts committee during the entire reign of Mr Laughren when he was the finance minister. I understand the comments he's just made, but the topic is accountability and I think the public demands more accountability for that hard-earned tax dollar, so I encourage all members to support the bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a rather interesting bill. I always look at the motivations of various bills that we see out there. This government is embarking upon an attack on the people who are mentioned in this bill in so many ways that I am afraid that the way they will view this, whether they should or not, is as an attack on their integrity and on their ability to manage hospitals, school boards, universities, colleges and municipalities.

The auditor already has certain powers to deal with these various transfer groups and I have found that to be an interesting exercise and a helpful exercise from time to time. But there's a general pattern. If this were not part of a general pattern, there would be much less suspicion from those groups that perhaps the government has another agenda, that the government wants to continue its attack. One of the ways it's attacking all these agencies is by depriving the agencies of the funding they require to carry out their responsibilities in the various fields.

A lot of them know the reason for this is the tax scheme the government has come up with, a tax scheme which is going to require the government of Ontario to borrow money to give people a tax cut. When I talk to small-c conservative friends I know, whether they are in the economics field, the business field or the Rotary Club, they wonder how it is that the government that is so worried about the provincial deficit is going to borrow money to give a tax break to people, those people being those who are at the highest income getting the most of it.

They can't figure this out. They say, "Why at the end of the Conservative term of office will there be $20 billion more in provincial debt?" Well, that's because they're going to have to borrow the money to give a tax cut which largely benefits the richest people.

My Conservative friends -- never mind the Liberals or New Democrats or anything -- can't figure that out. My friend from Wellington can't figure that out. I've read where he said it was not a wise thing to be doing. The member for Grey-Owen Sound has wondered about this. The person who is now the Speaker, the Honourable Chris Stockwell, wondered about that aloud.

The former Honourable -- because he was a minister -- Morley Kells, the member for Lakeshore, all of these people have wondered why the government would embark upon a risky tax scheme, as it is, in order that they can give money to the richest people in our society and that they would have to borrow the money, borrow additionally to give a tax break.

The people I'm talking to say: "Look, let's keep our services. Let's not close the hospitals in Ottawa that they're going to close. Let's leave that money there to do a good job for us in terms of health care. Let's ensure we have a good education system. Let's ensure our universities and colleges are able to carry out their responsibilities to make Ontario the truly competitive province we want it to be."

Yet, what do I hear? "No, it's more important to borrow some more money to give a tax cut to the most wealthy people in our society and add $20 billion to the provincial debt." Now this is bizarre, absolutely bizarre.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What's in the red book?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Please lecture on Kennedy.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Read the red book.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: I suspect from the level of noise I'm hearing from my friends on the government benches that a lot of them agree with me. They can't figure out why the whiz kids from the republican guard have sold this to the Premier and our formerly prudent Treasurer. They can't figure this out. So why not divert some attention by attacking these various agencies with a bill in the House that'll divert attention from the government?

Now the bill itself: Is it a malicious attack? I suspect not. But I simply look at the motivation of the government. I look across at my good friend from Niagara Falls and I say, "So young, yet so old." But they tell me in the Conservative Party that is the case, that the younger they are the more right-wing their views are. That's what I'm told by many in the party.

I want to leave some time for the member for Kingston and The Islands, because he has some very important things to say about this particular initiative today.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's always so difficult to follow my colleague from St Catharines, because he makes such eminent sense.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the members come to order, please.

Mr Gerretsen: It bears repeating that this is supposed to be the government of common sense, yet what are they doing? They are borrowing $20 billion over the next four to five years in order to give a tax cut to their wealthy friends. Let's not forget that 90% of the tax cut, $4.5 billion, goes to people who earn $100,000 or more. I think that's what we really should be talking about in the House. If that money were left in the system, not only would we not be increasing the public debt of the province but we would also still have money available to look after the health care of this province properly and to look after the education system of this province properly.

In dealing with this bill, let me just say that I congratulate the member for Niagara Falls for coming up with a bill that I can certainly support.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Brantford, come to order.

Mr Gerretsen: But let's hope we use some real common sense in the way in which this bill is going to be applied, because there are many situations where we have organizations that receive relatively small amounts of money from the province in one way or the other or through one of its agencies. I would hope the audit they would be subjected to is not going to cost more than the actual dollars they're receiving from the province.

I congratulate him on this bill. I will support him on it because I think it is the right way to go. I think it will lead to greater accountability. But let's make sure that the way the bill will be implemented will be in a real commonsense way, not in the revolutionary sense that these Common Sense Revolutionaries normally talk about.

The Acting Speaker: The mover has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Maves: I thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for their comments and support on the bill.

I can't let the member for St Catharines's comments go unresponded to. He has said there should be no growth in the debt over the next four years. The only way we could do that is if we had a zero deficit over the next four years. So he supports faster, deeper cuts. Good. It's good to have that on the record.

I'd like to say, speaking to the motivation of the government, that there is no motivation for the government because this is a private member's bill, and the traditions of this House are that the government doesn't interfere with private members' bills. They haven't interfered with this bill. I respect the traditions of this House, and this is my private member's bill, not a government bill.

Some have raised questions about duplication and growth of bureaucracy. I would like to say that last year the Provincial Auditor did 18 value-for-money audits of branches of ministries in the government. If this bill passes, they won't be increasing or doubling the size of their office; they will simply take their 84 staff, down from about 120 a few years ago, and instead of looking into branches of ministries, they'll maybe check into one of the 20-plus universities or one of the 800-plus municipalities or one of the 220 hospitals in the province.

They'll do that because, regardless of what the institution is, if the taxpayers' money is going into a government institution to fund certain activities in that institution, they have the right and they deserve from this government and from all members of this House to know that that money is being spent appropriately. That's what this bill is all about.

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

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'ORDRE DES ÉDUCATRICES ET DES ÉDUCATEURS DE LA PETITE ENFANCE DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with ballot item number 49, standing in the name of Mrs McLeod. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs McLeod has moved second reading of Bill 90. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I suggest it is appropriate for it to go to a committee of the Legislature rather than committee of the whole House so it would get some further consideration. Perhaps social development.

The Acting Speaker: You would like it to go to the standing committee on social development? You can certainly ask that. Is that agreed? No? Okay, all those in favour of the bill going to the social development committee please rise and remain standing.

Would the members take their seats, please. There is not a majority in favour; therefore, the bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA RESPONSABILISATION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with ballot item number 50, standing in the name of Mr Maves. If any members are opposed to this motion, please rise.

Mr Maves has moved second reading of Bill 89. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): No, I would request that the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Is there authority that the bill be sent to the standing committee on general government? All those in favour of the motion please rise and remain standing.

Please take your seats. The majority is in favour of the bill being referred to the general government committee.

The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PAEDIATRIC CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Today I rise on the matter we raised yesterday in the House regarding Kathy and Dale Mutter and their daughter Quincy. The minister said that all it takes to get a new doctor in this province is to make a simple call to his office. Let me remind the House what the Mutters had to go through to get a doctor for their daughter.

They and their doctor spent a week trying to find a paediatric cardiologist, but to no avail. Then the parents called Jim Wilson's office and were told to call the College of Physicians and Surgeons. One of my staff called Wilson's office on behalf of the Mutters and was told the exact same thing. Then the college gave the Mutters the name of a doctor who had already turned them down and the name of a doctor at Sick Kids who would only consider giving them an appointment next March or April.

It was only when the Mutters came down to Queen's Park and we asked you to do something about the deplorable situation that the Mutters got a doctor for their baby. The Mutters made the phone call, my office also made the phone call and you did nothing. Then we raised the issue in the House. All of a sudden you were ready to act.

Minister, I will take you at your word. I invite all Ontarians who, like the Mutters, are caught in the middle of this government's bungled negotiations and can't find a doctor: Call on Jim Wilson himself at 327-4300. But be warned because, as the Mutters found out --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I appreciate what you're doing, but signs are out of order, and giving out a minister's phone number too is I think pushing it to some degree.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's public information.

The Speaker: I understand, but he first off has a sign. That's out of order too.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Ontarians have been strong supporters of TVOntario for over 25 years. We are proud of the successes our very own provincial broadcaster has achieved. Here are just a few examples of the international recognition TVOntario has attained: Polkaroo, Ontario's well-loved children's character will appear on Chinese television starting next season with a potential audience of 125 million; TVO's top-rated, youth-oriented science show Inquiring Minds has also been sold to China's national broadcaster, to Japan's national broadcaster and to A&E in the United States. This has generated $400,000 in gross revenue for TVOntario.

TVOntario continues to win international acclaim. The Alliance for Children and Television chose TVOntario as their first organization to receive their Special Achievement Award. TVOntario is a finalist again for the international Emmy's UNICEF Award and Canada's Genie awards.

On Tuesday of this week, I and a number of my colleagues in this Legislature participated in the on-air membership campaign. MPPs helped to raise memberships in TVO, thereby increasing self-generated revenues and keeping TVO a strong force in Canada's public broadcasting arena.

All this is occurring while TVO is in the public sector, provincially funded. TVOntario is ours. Let's keep it that way. Don't sell it off.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I'm pleased to stand in the Legislature today to discuss an announcement in my riding this past Tuesday that is of concern to all in this House.

In keeping with the government's commitment to place the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the criminal in our system of justice, I was honoured to have the Attorney General, the minister responsible for seniors and Debbie Mahaffy present for the announcement of the new victim/witness assistance program for Milton. This program will provide victims and witnesses of crime, 90% of whom are women and children, with the information and support they need to avoid being retraumatized by their appearance in court.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate what both the Attorney General and my colleague from Burlington stated so eloquently on Tuesday morning, because it is something we want to make clear to those present in this House and to all Ontarians, "This government will not accept a justice system that allows victims of crime to suffer twice -- first at the hands of the criminal, and second at the hands of a justice system that does not respect their needs."

I implore all members of this House to take a moment out in recognition of November as Domestic Assault and Crime Prevention Month and remember the victims of crime.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will introduce nothing more than a tenant destruction bill. It's getting close to Christmas, just in time for the Tory grinches to take away all protection from tenants and leave many with nowhere to go because of unnecessary rent hikes.

The Tories have completely ignored the concerns raised in their sham public hearings and declared war on Ontario's tenants. I've already been through one round of public hearings with your so-called discussion paper. It was amazing that you didn't listen to tenants' concerns, Minister, in developing this legislation, and that's reflected in the bill being introduced today. I hope the minister gives his assurance that he will not limit consultation on this bill and that he will hold full public consultation. I hope this time he listens to tenants.

This government is now famous for ramming through controversial omnibus bills, forcing closure on debate and limiting public consultation when bulldozing through with bills. I hope for the sake of tenants that they will make significant changes to this destructive tenant legislation, or even withdraw it.

Al Leach tells the media that his plan will stimulate building of affordable housing, but there is no way this plan can do that. This plan takes rental units out of the rental pool. It gives landlords the green light to put a wrecking ball to their apartment buildings and rebuild condos. The vacancy decontrol is a fast track to eliminating rent control. This bill almost guarantees that once a unit becomes vacant by a tenant moving out, landlords will be able to jack up the rents.

The Minister of Housing promised landlords he would deliver, and today he delivers.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): In the last couple of weeks I've had several meeting with the tenants of the Walmer-Spadina area -- there are many buildings there -- and some of the buildings on St George Street. These are the buildings and tenants who live in the riding of St Andrew-St Patrick. They haven't seem much of the member there with respect to these concerns.

But I tell you, they tell me they're very, very worried and frightened about what we're about to hear from the Minister of Housing today. They're worried about the harassment they've had to face over the years and that that is likely to continue no matter what policies you introduce. They talked about a number of the ugly incidents that they've had to suffer with their landlords over the years, that they are continuing to suffer with respect to issues of harassment.

They're worried about conversion of their buildings to condominiums. They're worried about their rents going up. Many talk about the fact that they pay high rents as it is. When they hear that rents are likely to go up even more, they're worried about themselves and they're worried about the state of our economic affairs when they have to put more money into rent instead of spending it on other things. They're worried about this government taking off the rent freeze when landlords are not doing the necessary repairs to their building. They've told me that this minister is going to hear from those residents, and in fact all the tenants in Ontario.

LATVIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I rise to bring to the attention of all members that this week over 15,000 Ontarians of Latvian descent celebrate the 78th anniversary of the declaration of independence of the Republic of Latvia, an event which took place for the first time on November 18, 1918. For the next two decades Latvians worked hard to build a strong, proud country, a country with an exemplary standard of living, a country which boasted one of the highest literacy rates in the world, a country known for its tolerance towards its citizens of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

During the Second World War, years of hard work, pride and perseverance came to an end with periods of Nazi and Soviet occupation. In the ensuing decades, the Soviets succeeded in destroying the work of 20 years of independence.

Since regaining its independence in 1991, Latvia has enjoyed a peaceful period of renewal and rebirth. It is now on the road to becoming once again a proud and tolerant nation and a responsible member of the international community.

Ontario is a province that may gratefully boast a thriving Latvian Canadian community whose hardworking members have enriched our society in many ways. On behalf of the government of Premier Mike Harris, I am pleased to take this opportunity to wish all Latvian Ontarians our congratulations on Latvian Independence Day and continued freedom, prosperity and happiness in the future.

I am pleased also to note that three prominent members of the Toronto Latvian community are with us today in the members' gallery: Mr Valdis Vagners, Mr Ivars Timbers and Mr Varis Pludons.

PAEDIATRIC CARE

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): A couple of months ago I brought to the attention of the Minister of Health the problems the Chiefari family were experiencing in attempting to donate blood for their baby Ryan's heart operation. Only after that confrontation did the long, difficult process begin to be resolved, and Ryan yesterday had his heart operation with his mother's blood.

Yesterday in this House I brought to the attention of the Minister of Health the problems being experienced by 18-month-old Quincy Mutter in finding a paediatric cardiologist. The minister's office subsequently intervened to find a doctor.

The official opposition is grateful for the assistance of the minister himself in resolving these two cases, but the urgency in Ontario's health care system continues and we should not rely on a case-by-case resolution by political staff in the minister's office.

The minister said yesterday we should feel free to call him with emergency cases. His staff made outrageous statements that members of this House needed to give the minister notice of any individual cases we might raise in the House. It appears therefore that our power as members of thi