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

October 31, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ASCENSEURS ET APPAREILS DE LEVAGE

Mr Ruprecht moved second reading of Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

M. Ruprecht propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ascenseurs et appareils de levage.

Mr Ruprecht: The item of elevators in Ontario is extremely serious. As you know, Mr Speaker, and as all members of the House by now know, since this has been up for discussion here, every year thousands of people are affected by accidents in elevators. We all know that this means that many more tenants are forced to climb 10, 20, even 30 stairs -- and storeys -- to reach their apartments.

In Ontario, non-fatal elevator accidents grew from 70 in 1978 to almost 1,000 since the NDP government took office. In a letter from the Toronto Fire Department, it was disclosed that the fire department rescued over 1,100 people from broken-down elevators in 1990, since this government took office. That is a very serious indictment of how elevators and the subsequent inspections and the problems arising therefrom are operated in Ontario. I only wish that with the introduction of this bill the minister were here. To my great surprise, she is not present this morning to talk about Bill 139 and why she would think it is or is not a good idea to introduce this legislation.

Before I continue, I wish to thank the many people who really helped me in writing and researching this bill and ensuring that indeed it gets to see the light of day. It points out how serious this matter has become for Ontario residents who have to travel every day in elevators.

I wish of course, first of all, to thank the Toronto Fire Department for having done yeomen's work in supplying a good deal of research and information on the broken elevators; the city of Toronto department of buildings and inspections; the Ministry of Housing; the researcher for our library, Mr Hill, who has done the actual bill; and, indeed, a number of other people who are directly involved in elevator maintenance in this province, including the mayor of Toronto, who has also written a letter to me and supports this bill. But more about that later.

According to a 1990 report by Ontario's elevator inspectors, Ontario has the worst ratio of inspectors to elevating devices in all of Canada. In the last little while there indeed have been a number of accidents that caused serious injury. I am looking at this time at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union report which most members have heard about.

The real question is, what does the minister responsible for elevating devices have to say about this public hazard? I have asked the question in the Legislature, and she said, "Yes, Mr Ruprecht, we are aware of the difficulty and we're doing some kind of" -- what? -- "risk management." In other words, simply because there are not enough inspectors around, we have to inspect only those elevators which indeed are the worst ones in the province and which cause injury and in some cases even death.

We as Ontario residents should never be exposed to an elevator which is not functioning and indeed never be exposed to an elevator which gets stuck between floors. I have with me a number of signatures of people who have been stuck and have been seriously hurt to the point where they have been so afraid for their own lives that from then on they are psychologically scarred. They may never again step into an elevating device because of the fear of not being safe.

The minister then says to us, "Well, don't worry, folks, you cannot crash because what we're really interested in is ensuring that no one dies while riding in an elevator." I suppose that is not the major point of this bill. Bill 139 goes to the heart of the elevating devices problem in the province.

We know what the problems are. I will outline them for members: in the city of Toronto alone over 1,000 accidents since this government took over; over 2,228 -- I think the number is exact -- people have been rescued in the last two years from elevators that have been stuck and the fire department has had to be called in. Every time the fire department is called in, we know that obviously it is at a great expense to the taxpayer.

There is no reason why the fire trucks should come out to rescue people because they are stuck in elevators. There is no reason for that if there is a service contract. This is what this bill speaks to specifically: a service contract in Bill 139 that outlines specifically what the elevator maintenance crew would have to do. All we are saying in Bill 139 is that the owner ought to get into a kind of service agreement with a bona fide elevator contractor. That agreement would stipulate how many times there should be inspections and maintenance performed.

I am looking at the Residential Rental Standards Board's recommendation and information available to the public. It says very clearly in here that as it stands now, the person who owns a high-rise building and who consequently is responsible for elevating devices in this building obviously does not have to provide elevating devices in that building.

If the elevator is not functioning properly or if it is unsafe, all the owner would have to do is say "I shut the thing down," and there is nothing anybody can do. The provincial inspectors come out and say, "I'm sorry, but you've got a bunch of senior citizens here, there are 50 of them in the lobby and they're trying to get to the 50th floor," and they cannot get to the 50th floor. Why? Because the owner says, "There's nothing in the law that makes me have this elevator back in service."

I am not making this up. It is here in the Residential Rental Standards Board booklet that is open for everyone to see. We are not asking, with Bill 139, to hire more inspectors. We are not saying, "Hire hundreds more inspectors," because that is what the ministry would have to do to ensure the safety of elevating devices; we are not asking for that. We are simply asking for a service contract to ensure maintenance is being performed before the problem arises, before the elevator gets stuck, before someone is killed. That is very simple.

It is not such a big deal simply to say to the owner, "Get yourself a service contractor and have that man come once a month or at regular intervals to inspect the elevator," not to shut it down, but to make it functioning for the seniors and all those whose lives might be threatened by broken-down elevators.

I feel very sorry indeed for the minister, because the minister apparently does not understand her own legislation. She says to my response -- and I think I might be hearing from my colleagues across the floor -- "Under

section 22 of the Elevating Devices Act...every owner of an elevator must ensure that the device is maintained and inspected by a contractor registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations." The emphasis here is not on maintenance, the emphasis here is not on fixing the elevator, the emphasis is that the inspector has to be registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That is the emphasis of this legislation that is presently on the books; that is the secret here.

It is not that maintenance should be performed, when the minister says, "We've got it all in the book; it's all working." If it was working right now, how come thousands get stuck in elevators? If the legislation is so clear to the minister, how come thousands of people are at risk? This is not clear.

All we are saying under Bill 139 is: "Let's have it clear. There is no reason for anybody to be stuck." If the legislation is clear, how come the mayor of Toronto, how come the department of municipal inspections, how come the Ministry of Housing is saying not only that it does not have a clear concept of what the legislation says but is telling us very clearly there is a problem and, "We wish to fix it." Bill 139 is set out to fix the problem of elevating devices and to clear up the law. I would hope that most members would be in support of it.

Mr Tilson: My friend the member for Parkdale has made several how-come comments. He has also indicated the number of tragedies that have occurred in the last number of years up to the time when the NDP took power, and they are tragedies. Some very serious tragedies have occurred over the years. The question I have to the member is, why in the world is the member for Parkdale standing up now? When the Liberals were in power, they had every opportunity to make amendments to this bill. There was one amendment made by the Liberal government. That amendment, as I understand it, was to extend the limitation period for proceeding under the act from six months to a year.

So on the one hand I concur on the issue of safety. There is no question that there needs to be extensive overhaul of the Elevating Devices Act. I do not think the bill goes into a whole slew of areas. We have had tragedies, we have had coroners' inquests, we have had reports that have been made to the Liberal government, which did nothing. They did absolutely nothing. They made one amendment to extend the limitation period from six months to one year.

Mrs Caplan: That is not nothing.

Mr Tilson: It is. A coroner's inquest took place in 1988, for example, a tragedy at the Scotia Plaza, when there was perhaps one of the longest and most complex inquests ever held into Ontario industrial accidents. Statistics can be given to this House and to the people of this province in regard to the seriousness of what needs to be done.

What came out of that coroner's inquest were a number of recommendations: safety devices that would prevent elevators from speeding upward, logbooks that would detail the maintenance history of every elevator, mandatory health and safety committees on Ontario construction sites, more provincial elevator inspectors, certification of all critical elevator components by the manufacturer and mandatory accident reports that would be circulated throughout the industry.

Certainly the member can be lauded -- he is a little bit late; he should have done it while he was in power -- for putting forth legislation like this, but it is not extensive enough, and I challenge the government to go even further than the member for Parkdale.

There was a submission made to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations by the elevator all-industry committee in January of this year, in which considerable recommendations were made. This was a committee which was formed in 1989 for the purpose of developing an industry position on the issues of major concern to the entire elevator industry. It speaks on behalf of 85% of the industry's manufacturing and contracting companies. This report was made available to this government. Again I applaud the member for bringing this issue forward, because certainly the government should take a serious look at the issues.

A number of recommendations were made in this report. There are specific, very important issues that the industry is currently facing:

The urgent need to respond to the training and retraining requirements and set qualification standards for elevator mechanics. That is not dealt with in this bill.

The need to review and clearly establish the role of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the regulation of the elevator industry. Should there be more government control or should it be more privatized? That is not dealt with in this bill.

The need to establish how the industry and government can move to retrofit existing elevators with new safety devices. That is not dealt with in this bill.

There was the subject of privatization, a very extensive report on the whole matter. What has been raised by the member for Parkdale, although admirable, does not go nearly far enough towards what our party has been advocating, that is, the safety of the elevator industry in Ontario.

There are a couple of other things I would like to draw to the House's attention on the subject of training. Training of all elevator mechanics should be compulsory. My understanding at this particular time is that it is not.

There should be compulsory training programs for elevator mechanics that reflect the three distinctive categories of skills required in the industry: (1) the installation of new elevators; (2) the maintenance of elevators, which is the very subject which this bill is talking about of course, and (3) the modernization and upgrading of older elevator units.

I recommend that all members of the House read this report, and certainly I hope that the member will read the report and that more extensive amendments be made to the act than are being put forward by the member.

Certainly the bill deals with two separate issues. One is with respect to maintenance agreements. The bill calls for landlords of residential premises to enter into service contracts for the regular service and maintenance of elevators contained in their buildings. That is certainly admirable, although I would point out to the member that the regulation, the current law, already says what he is putting forward.

Regulation 229/81, subsection 22(1), states, "Every owner of an elevating device shall ensure that the elevating device is not used or operated unless it is maintained by a registered contractor in accordance with the requirements of this section." That is what the member is asking. I assume, therefore, and perhaps he can clarify this, he is asking that what is in the regulation be put in the act. It is not that we do not have that law; we do have this law in the form of the regulation.

What we do not have is a whole series of matters that should be made amendments to the act that are all set forth in this report, which would provide more safety to the people of this province who use the elevators more and more. There are more and more elevators all around this province, and there is a fear for safety. All we see is the minister's signature on the elevators as we are riding up and down, and I think we all wonder, "What does that mean?"

The bill certainly requires landlords of residential premises to keep elevators in service, except during times when they have to be taken out of service for maintenance, repair or replacement. Currently, the act deals with the safe operation of elevators. The amendment does not appear to be congruent with the existing legislation inasmuch as it appears to require landlords to keep the elevators in operation.

From a public safety perspective, we certainly support the intent of the bill, but I can say that it does not go nearly far enough. I will be interested in hearing from some of the housing experts across the floor and from members of the Liberal Party who are supporting Bill 121 because, if Bill 121 passes, the whole issue of safety will be dealt with in there. If you do not fix your elevators, you are going to have your rent knocked down. That is what Bill 121 says. Generally speaking, I can say I support the intent of the bill. What I do say is that the bill does not go nearly far enough and that the government should be encouraged to make substantial amendments with respect to safety.

If landlords are forced to enter into maintenance agreements for their elevators, there are a lot of other problems we have heard, specifically during the housing hearings that have gone on throughout Bill 4 and Bill 121, serious problems with respect to concrete falling off walls, with respect to boilers, with respect to underground parking garages and roofs leaking. How far does our government go? Should landlords be required to enter into regular contracts to inspect those things?

We have landlords come to us and say they cannot afford that because of the draconian laws that are being put forward by this government, and there are a lot of major problems as far as the practicalities of what my friend is recommending are concerned. I encourage him to bring forth bills of this type, but I would hope he would go much further than he is doing.

When we study the bill, we do not know, for example, how often the inspections should be made. Obviously inspections with respect to elevators that are only six months old might be not be nearly as great as inspections required for elevators that are perhaps 10 years old, so I think the bill needs much tidying up before I personally support it. We do not know specifically how long these contracts are to last or over what period of time the inspections are to take place. The regulations seem to be quite clear in many areas, but need to be tightened up.

In conclusion, I would submit that I am not in favour of the bill as drafted. I am in favour of the general intent of what the member for Parkdale is putting forward, as I am sure we all are. We are all concerned with respect to safety.

Mr Fletcher: First, I would like to commend the member for Parkdale for his thoughtful presentation of this bill. When it comes to safety, I think we all agree that is one of the paramount things we should be looking at in elevator services. I am not here to point fingers and say, "You should have done it or you should have done it." When it comes to safety I do not think we can start pointing fingers. It is something we all have to take our blame for.

As far as elevators and escalators are concerned, they are machines and they are going to break down just like cars or anything else breaks down. Once they do break down, I think people start to say: "Hey, I depend on this elevator. I need this elevator." They often feel penalized or shut out if an elevator does break down.

Should the public be concerned about safety? Of course it should. Everyone should be concerned about safety, but first let me assure members that elevators in Ontario are safe. In fact, if you compare them to any other form of transportation, elevators are probably the safest way of moving people. This has been the case in the past, and it is still the case today.

It is also important to note that Ontario's Elevating Devices Act and the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators are widely considered to be the best in the world. The ministry's elevating devices branch, in co-operation with industry, has played a large

part in developing safety devices for Ontario elevators and in some of the success stories about what we have done with elevators. This is from previous governments, so let's not start pointing fingers again. The successful examples are elevator passenger door safeties, anti-joyriding devices, and safeties to control the speed of elevators.

Should there be legislation requiring landlords to have an agreement with a contractor for the maintenance of elevators to keep devices going? The Elevating Devices Act already requires an owner to have maintenance performed by a contractor registered with the ministry.

The reality of this whole situation is that landlords sometimes remove elevators from service for non-safety reasons, such as selective use for building maintenance. There are also disputes over payment for service. This results in the contractor refusing to perform work pending resolution, leaving the elevator shut down. I agree that people should not have to walk 10 or 15 storeys with groceries, but that does not come down to the act. The act is not the problem. The problem is the dispute between a landlord and a contractor.

Although people, especially the disabled and seniors, have been adversely affected by elevator breakdowns, let's face it, our primary concern is their safety. The requirement to keep elevators in service is not going to prevent any breakdowns. In fact, it could increase the frequency of breakdowns because of the requirement to minimize the downtime for maintenance. Municipalities have enacted such bylaws. I think the city of Toronto had just such a bylaw, but it has proved to be unenforceable.

The ministry does inspect its elevators. It inspects them on the basis of assessed risk rather than routinely inspecting them every year or two, regardless of their age, the equipment, and the use and quality of the maintenance. Recently it has become harder to recruit inspectors because of the industry's shortage of qualified mechanics, as well as the discrepancy between wages paid by the government and the industry.

As far as fatalities are concerned, could they have been prevented with more frequent inspection? It is hard to say, because accidents are seldom caused by component failure. What they are caused by is human error. Actually the incidence of elevator passengers being injured in normal use is almost zero. However, we know that one accident is one too many.

Ontario's excellent elevator safety record does not stop our ongoing efforts to improve it. Following the inquest into one of the fatalities in 1989, the ministry established the Elevator Safety Task Force with government, industry and labour representatives. A task force report based on the jury's recommendations laid the foundation for initiatives that are currently in the works. For example, a certification and training program for all elevator mechanics in Ontario is being developed by the MCCR and the Ministry of Skills Development in partnership with industry and labour.

We are also adding a new

chapter to the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators detailing the minimum requirements for the maintenance on elevators and escalators. The code, which is enforced in Ontario, will also introduce mandatory recordkeeping requirements.

Again I commend the member for introducing the bill and for trying to help the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to develop some concrete policies. I am concerned about something that could happen as a result of this bill, and that is the fear that is growing unnecessarily among the public. Some people call the ministry and ask if it is safe to get into an elevator that has not been inspected over the last year. We say yes. Elevators are inspected based on their age, equipment and usage.

It is important to note that the Ontario legislation regarding elevators is widely considered to be among the best in the world. I cannot support the bill. I do not think the bill is going to do anything as far as the safety and operation of elevators are concerned. As I said before, I commend the member for Parkdale but I do not think his bill goes far enough. I do not think his bill is right. It goes in the wrong direction.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to speak on this bill put forward by the member for Parkdale on an issue of great importance to tenants. I cannot stress enough how important this issue is to tenants. In my riding of Eglinton, approximately 60% of the makeup is tenants. Over the past four years, without a doubt the two number one issues in my riding have consistently been elevators and maintenance, but until recently I did not have any hard data to back up my belief that this was a very important problem.

Just last fall -- September, October and November 1990 -- the United Tenants of Ontario race relations committee decided it would choose north Toronto as a target area to do a very extensive survey. The survey had two purposes: first, to see whether tenants were experiencing discrimination in their building related to race, creed, religion or other matters; second, to determine the level of tenants' satisfaction with their building.

It was quite enlightening. Several hundred tenants were surveyed in 12 different buildings; as I said, it was an extremely extensive survey. What they found when determining the level of satisfaction with their buildings was that 11.4% were very satisfied with elevators, 31.7% were somewhat satisfied with elevator performance and 55.7% were dissatisfied with the elevators. It was by far the number one cause for complaint.

I will give the members the other statistics because I think they will find them of interest. The second one was building security; 34.2% found this a level of dissatisfaction. The next one was relations with the landlord, 17.7%; the superintendent, 11.4%; rent, 13.3%; maintenance and renovations, 10.8%.

When you go to the next question, it becomes even more obvious. It asks, "If you were the owner of this building, what would be the first thing you would improve (choose one only)?" To this, 27.2% said they would choose to remedy the elevator situation, the top reason; the second one, 26.6%, was maintenance and renovations; and perhaps surprisingly enough to the government, 8.2% would choose rent as being the first thing they would improve in their building. Elevators were the number one reason for complaint. Elevators were the first thing tenants would choose to remedy.

I have a situation in my riding with which I would like to illustrate how the member for Parkdale's bill would help. It is a building on Soudan Avenue in my riding with a high proportion of seniors. It is a walk-up with, I believe, around 70 or 80 units. With this building, the elevators were out of repair for an extended period of time. The ownership of the building was in litigation. The city of Toronto came in and used its authority to repair the elevators. The problem was that they could not get the elevators going again because the ministry said at this point that there was no maintenance and service agreement with the owner company, so it would not allow the elevators to proceed.

If under the member for Parkdale's bill we had a provision from day one, when that elevator was licensed, that a maintenance and service contract would be in place, we would not have to wait until there was a crisis situation to look at the issue. It would have been in place. It would have been serviced. It could have been added to the tax bill, in the same way as the city of Toronto put the repair on the tax bill.

I know the minister quoted a

section of the act where she said there is already protection, but it is not in the act; it is in the regulations. Not only that, but it is at the will of the landlord whether he or she chooses to have a maintenance and service agreement. So I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we get these amendments. The member for Dufferin-Peel mentioned that it did not go far enough, although he supported the principle. Maybe it does not go far enough.

I am sure there are other things we could do to improve the Elevating Devices Act, but I say to the member for Dufferin-Peel, Support Bill 139, get it to committee and we can then add other provisions that would strengthen the act. It is a starting point.

The member for Parkdale focused on two problems he has had in his area, which is why he brought forward this bill, but I am sure the member for Parkdale would be most open to expanding the protections to other areas, so I urge the member for Dufferin-Peel to support this bill. This is vitally important to tenants in this province.

Many of our buildings have elevators, and as the member for Parkdale has pointed out on a number of occasions, just in the city of Toronto there are thousands of instances every year when the fire department is called upon to try to rescue some poor individual or individuals from an elevator. This cannot be tolerated. We need to provide people with more protection, the protection of making sure there is a regular maintenance and service contract, and ensuring that the landlord is required to keep the elevator in service except for such reasonable time as it takes for repair.

This government has said consistently that it believes in tenant protection. If members of the government vote against this bill, they will have proved that their commitment to tenant protection is nothing but hollow rhetoric. As for the minister's comments last week that they were not going to intervene, that it was not their business to intervene, this government has intervened in every facet of Ontario life. Why would they hesitate to intervene when tenants' safety and in some instances their lives are in jeopardy?

I urge all members of this House to support this excellent bill. I commend the member for Parkdale for bringing it forward and I hope we can work together to make this province safer for the tenants of this province.

Ms Carter: Elevators are very close to my heart, because I do not know how my heart would stand up to climbing the 30 flights of stairs between ground level and my apartment. They are very close to me when I get there too, because I can hear them running all night long. I am willing to climb one, two or even three flights of stairs, and I believe it even does me good, but beyond that, of course, an elevator becomes essential even for those of us who are able-bodied. I am totally dependent on the ups and downs of this gadget. Also, my office is on the 13th floor.

I have been inconvenienced many times by the long-drawn-out renovations to the elevators in the building where I reside -- there has been an apologetic sign on display for months -- but an elevator always comes eventually and has never in my experience malfunctioned. The time my husband got stuck in an elevator he was, I believe, in Winnipeg, not in Ontario.

I believe we are doing something right here in Ontario. Safety has to come first. To put pressure on landlords to keep elevators in service at all times unless actually under repair, as this Bill 139 would do, risks increasing the operation of unsafe elevators. Even if the bill became law, there would be no magical increase in the number of people available to service and inspect elevators or in the amount of money available to do it. If I had to choose -- heaven forbid -- I would rather sleep in my office than risk ascending to the 30th floor in an unsafe elevator.

To many disabled and elderly people in our society, elevators are more than just a convenience or a lazy option. They are an essential part of being able to come and go at all. I was proud to assist at the opening of an elevator in a Peterborough church last Sunday. Church funds had been matched by an access grant from the Ministry of Citizenship to make this possible. Elderly and disabled people were acquiring the freedom to participate, without assistance, in the life of their church and their community.

Of course, that elevator and hopefully many more like it must be kept running, but not if there is the slightest doubt about their safety. I am sure the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will continue to deploy its inspectors in the most efficient way possible, given financial and staffing constraints. As my colleague has said, a certification and training program for all elevator mechanics in Ontario is being developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Skills Development, in partnership with industry and labour representatives. A new

chapter is also being added to the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators, detailing the minimum requirements for the maintenance of elevators and escalators.

The province is taking effective action to improve its already excellent record on elevator safety. As one of many whose life here in Toronto would be quite impossible without these devices, and as one concerned about those who need them for even minor changes of level, I do not support this Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act, although I appreciate the concern it embodies.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you very much, and also my dear colleague the member for Parkdale, for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of his bill. He has done extensive research on this matter. He does not speak only from his heart; he speaks from knowledge and he has put forward to the government and to the opposition statistics on which they can base their support of this bill.

I was quite surprised and concerned that my dear colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel began his remarks with finger-pointing at who has not done enough with regard to this bill and who in the previous government had not done sufficient in ensuring the safety of elevating devices.

I had hoped also that some of my comments would fall on the ears of a minister, but I am disappointed that no minister is here. That immediately tells me that the interest they have taken in the concerns of tenants in this province is just lipservice. However, I do have faith in quite a few of the backbenchers -- I hate to call them backbenchers; my colleagues who are not in the august circle of the cabinet, which carries such words of concern.

The member for Dufferin-Peel pointed out that there are a tremendous number of omissions from this bill of things that should have been there and therefore he is unable to support it. I have yet to find any bill that is presented that is a perfect bill. We put it forward, and then if there are any additions or amendments that members want to put forward, they can do so in committee. To support it in principle but not vote for it is a contradiction. If you support it in principle, you support it and vote for it; then when it gets to committee, you make your necessary amendments.

It was brought very vividly to my attention. My riding of Scarborough North has quite a few elevating devices. A gentleman was going for surgery on his back, and the elevating device had broken down. Mr Richard Cohen, the gentleman in question, had written to me and phoned me and had phoned the ministry and could not get any response. He had phoned every ministry -- the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Housing -- and he said he could not get any response. He had phoned me, and of course I tried to get some response out of those offices too, and to relay this gentleman's concern.

His concern was that, coming back from the hospital, realizing that he could not get back to the seventh floor by walking up seven floors was quite a traumatic experience for him. For two days in his building those elevators did not work. He phoned me concerned for the senior citizens who had to walk five, six, seven floors in order to get to their homes. He talked about people with heart cases who were concerned that they may have a heart attack in that process.

Before I tell members what the bill would have done, I will tell them what it has not done. My colleague the member for Parkdale wrote to the Minister of Housing with this concern and it responded to him. The manager from policy and programs spoke about, "There appears to be no mechanism to provide the elevating devices branch with the ability to make the necessary repairs and charge the cost back to the owner." He also said, "There is no provision in the legislation to require an owner to make the necessary repairs."

This bill states very simply, one, that the landlord shall enter into an agreement with a bona fide contractor "for the maintenance of the device at regular intervals" and, two, that the landlord ensures that "any elevating device intended for the use of tenants...is kept in service at all times."

It is important, at a time when this present government speaks of access and it says that you have a home and you cannot even get to it. As a matter of fact, even to get to your home may cause you some hardship, maybe death. I hope it is not so.

I was surprised that my honourable colleague the member for Guelph said that it is one of the safest elevating devices -- I do not know if he said the world or if he was comparing it with something else. I am very disappointed that he ignored the statistic that talks about over 1,000 incidents that have happened since the NDP -- not because of their fault but just as a matter of measurement -- has taken the reins of government. He ignored that and said it is one of the safest. Six deaths, I gather, have happened.

These are things that come back, the agony that could have been avoided if we had had proper elevating devices in place. To say, "Let us not do anything about it because we are one of the safest" -- we are not trying to be one of the safest; we are striving to be safe.

I would like to acknowledge the fact that, especially in private members' bills, it gives the members an opportunity not to go with the government, the Minister of Housing, who has called them and said, "Please don't support this," but to think individually of their own concerns and the concerns of their constituencies and vote for this. If they want amendments, as I said, if it is not adequate, they should put forward their amendments to improve on this bill.

We have seen in the past, of course, that members would like to have supported a bill on their own principles and moral obligations and they are then coerced in many ways by ministers and by premiers not to do this. But I urge them to stand on their own principles, to stand on the principle of the safety of tenants that they advocated for a long time, and I urge the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel to do so too.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act, with regard to the bill's requiring landlords to enter into agreements for regular maintenance.

Some time ago, back in 1986, the member for Leeds-Grenville asked some questions in this Legislature of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Wilson Heights, with regard to some of the problems that had taken place in this province with regard to deaths in elevators and the many joyrides that were taking place. From that debate there was a study mandated, the Final Report of the Ontario Elevator Safety Task Force. That report indicates much along the line of what this bill is talking about. It says:

"The Ontario regulation should require that every elevator owner must secure continuously a full maintenance contract that would include replacement parts or have equipment thoroughly examined periodically, at a maximum 12-month interval, by a registered contractor who must certify that all components are fit for safe operation. This would trigger a renewal of the licence for a 12-month period. Prior to expiration, a further examination and certification must be carried out."

That report really says what the member is indicating here today, to amend the act to allow for that very

section to be put in.

I really thought this was covered in the act now with regard to staff training and safety. Upgrading of elevator units in apartment buildings I guess is one of the major concerns that many apartment dwellers have. I do not see where, in this bill we are talking about, there is anything with regard to the upgrading of elevator units. Maintenance agreements, I would have thought, are already within the act at the present time. Failing that, I would anticipate Bill 121 would include much of what the member is speaking about here today.

When we are talking about elevators, it gives us a chance to express some of the concerns that have been brought to our attention within our own constituencies, and especially in Metropolitan Toronto, where you have the large high-rises. We ride them every day and take it for granted that they just work. Sometimes we have to wait longer. The member for Peterborough was talking about the waits she sometimes has, and I live in the same building so I know what it is all about, but only once have I ever had to walk down those 31 flights of stairs.

Mr Curling: What about going up?

Mr McLean: Going down would not be bad, but walking up would certainly test my ability.

Anyhow, the presence of this bill here today brings a debate in this Legislature and brings to the minds of the people just how serious this is and how important the elevators are in the buildings and how important this is to our seniors. In the constituency I represent, we have had elevators put in Royal Canadian Legion branches with the help of the taxpayers. I think those types of things are important when we are talking about elevators and the safety within them. But the staff training is important. More inspectors and better-trained inspectors would be important.

I think today what we are doing is debating a piece of legislation that I would have anticipated would already have been in any bill, and the bill would require landlords of residential premises containing elevators to enter into agreements for regular maintenance of the elevator. I know of hardly any building that would not have that in its contract. It requires landlords of residential premises to keep elevators in service. I would think this is in place already.

The Deputy Speaker: You have spoken on this issue already, have you not?

Mr Fletcher: Yes, I have.

The Deputy Speaker: You cannot do it again.

Mr Fletcher: Okay.

The Deputy Speaker: There are four minutes and 34 seconds left for the government side.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I can get the extra time, that would be appreciated.

The Deputy Speaker: If there is unanimous consent, I will give it to the member for Parkdale. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes left, the member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I want the public to know today that when we talk about the seriousness of the elevating devices, this NDP government -- that is how really generous it is -- did not permit giving me two more minutes to talk about the elevating devices and the problems we are facing today. They should be ashamed of themselves, not being generous enough to give their colleague two extra minutes. They would rather sit there, stony faced, ashamed of themselves because they are unable to sympathize with the seniors and with the tenants of this province.

Every time they stand in front of an elevating device that is not working and they have to walk 20 flights of stairs, I want them to think about this bill and that they have said no to this legislation.

Let me just refer very briefly to what the member for Dufferin-Peel said. I appreciate his remarks, and he has indicated that we should go farther than the proposal of my bill. Obviously I think he has a point. Nevertheless, this is the first step and I assume that he would support this as a first step. Once it gets into the committee we can go much farther, and then obviously I would agree with him.

The same goes for the member for Simcoe East, who somehow, along with the member for Guelph, is under the mistaken impression that

section 22 already provides for maintenance-of-service contracts. It does not. There is no provision here that ensures that elevators are being maintained, and certainly there is no provision here that an owner is required to make the necessary repairs.

In short, I would hope that the members who are assembled here today would ask a question of the minister, who is probably stuck in an elevator, because she is not here today.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time for the first ballot item has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Arnott moved second reading of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

M. Arnott propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 111, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased today to be here in this crowded chamber once again in private members' hour to bring forward my views on a private member's ballot item, Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

The basic intent of the bill is quite simple. The bill would amend the Legislative Assembly Act by requiring each member to take an oath that the member will not only be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen but also that he or she will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada and that he or she will conduct himself or herself with integrity in carrying out his or her responsibilities as a member and, subject to his or her own judgement and conscience, seek to represent the views of those who elected him or her.

I would like to start, I suppose, by reading the present oath, because I was quite surprised, when I made my views known that I was intending to propose a change to the oath, at the number of members who came over to me and asked me what the oath is at present. Essentially, what oath did they take a year ago? I was quite struck by that, so I will read it again:

"I, ..., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law.

"So help me God."

As I say, that is the oath we presently take.

I will read at this time the specific oath I am proposing, an amendment,

section 24a, of the Legislative Assembly Act:

"I, ..., do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law, that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada, and that in carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly I will conduct myself with integrity and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents.

"So help me God."

When you are proposing something new you always have to justify why. That is the first question, why do we need a new oath? I believe we need a new oath. I think back about a year ago to the heady days of the fall of 1990. I was at Convocation Hall watching the new government, their Agendas for People clutched in their hands proudly as they were sworn into government.

At approximately the same time I was sworn in as a member of this Legislature, and my friends and family came down to Toronto to be present at what I felt was a very auspicious occasion in my life and something I was very excited about. I took my oath, the picture was taken and so forth, as every member did, but I was somewhat struck about how quickly it was over.

I felt at the time that there could be a more substantial oath. Not that there is any problem with the existing oath, but it could be made more substantial. There could be things added to it to give it more meaning and purpose. I believe the new oath would be an important addition because it could become a symbolic testimony of why we are here. A solemn promise made before the clerk with the Bible and before God is a new, important addition we could bring to this, a promise made to represent our constituents and to do various other things beyond just the oath to the Queen.

Doing some research about oaths, I came across a quote from the 17th century, Samuel Butler. He wrote a brief phrase that I think is telling: "Oaths are but words, and words but wind." I see that as a real problem. There may be an opinion that this is true and perhaps we need to counter that and put more faith in the oaths we take. I think there needs to be more substance to remind us of our responsibilities, our duties, why we are here and whom we serve.

I will take members through the new oath I am proposing phrase by phrase and indicate why I have added parts. First of all, the allegiance to the Queen is exactly the same as the existing oath, which I believe is very important, especially today. We have a situation in our country and in our province where people feel they have very little certainty and very little to grasp on to. The monarchy still remains a very important role in our society and we have to maintain and reaffirm that, I believe.

Second, I think it is very important to give an indication that members are willing to obey and uphold the laws of Ontario and Canada. I find that in the past it sometimes was overlooked. If we do not have a commitment to the laws we make here, we have a big problem. We have a direct influence on how the laws are changed. I do not believe in civil disobedience. I think we should take the attitude that if we do not like the laws, we will work to change them from our place here.

It is important also to have a reminder about conducting ourselves with a great degree of integrity. Some might argue that integrity is a very subjective matter. It may be to some people, but I think everyone has a personal standard of integrity and we often have to be reminded of our own standard, because in the heat of the moment or the day we may take steps towards deviating from that standard we have set for ourselves. I believe it is important that we are reminded of this.

It is very important to talk about the next part, "subject to my own conscience and judgement, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents." I think that goes without saying. There is such a malaise in the land today that members are not representing their constituents. We know we try every day to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, but the people do not seem to know that. If we encourage this in our oath, it can have an effect out there and hopefully add some respect for this institution.

I do not believe Bill 111 is going to change the world. I see it as a very modest and small step in the right direction towards a new path we should be taking. I believe reforms are drastically needed in this place and in this legislation in the way we conduct our own affairs. I am very disappointed at times, and I have been guilty of it too -- I do not want to sound as though I am never involved in interjections, because I am -- because the decorum in this place has been abysmal in the last few weeks. I think we have to keep that in mind.

We have to work towards enhancing the status of the private member at the expense of the executive because we are elected as well. Private members are seen by the people as being weak. We have to enhance our ability to work on behalf of our constituents. We have to work towards restoring the public's faith in this institution of Parliament because we are going to keep the institution but in my opinion we have to reform it from within.

I think we need to encourage the media towards a more positive portrayal of the work we do in this place. It concerns me that they seem to focus on the negative and do not report that we often work together in a common effort to solve the problems of the province. I think this bill in some small way might open the doors of this place. As I have said, in caucus all of us work very hard on behalf of our constituents and passionate views are exchanged, but people do not see that. If we took this oath promising to represent the views of our constituents, many of us would feel freer to express our views publicly in this forum.

I would like to close by talking briefly about where our commitment originates as members. Many of us have brought our ambitions to this place. We have ideas we want to bring forward to enact into law to improve this place and to improve the province. We have devotion to various causes. We have devotion to our constituents. All of us bring ideals to this place. Often our ideals and our passions are somewhat tempered after a period of time when we see the realization of what can occur, but we also have our instincts that we bring forward on views.

If we started with a new oath, if we defined the origin of our commitment with this new oath, it would be a big improvement. I would like to propose this solemn oath before God and before the Legislature, and I hope we can get some support.

Mr Mills: I am very proud and privileged to stand in my place in the House today and speak to

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, Bill 111, proposed by my colleague opposite.

I would like first of all to speak briefly about Durham East, the riding I represent. Traditionally, the best we could do as New Democrats in Durham East prior to 1990 was, give or take, about 5,000 or 6,000 votes. This time around I was able to increase that figure by roughly another 5,000. As I stand in this House today, I recognize that I represent at least 4,000 or 5,000 who are not traditionally New Democrats. They do not profess to be, nor did they ever profess to be. I recognize that fact here in my decisions daily.

I would like to speak briefly about the amendment and my colleague's words here: "I will seek to represent the views of my constituents" and "I will conduct myself with integrity." I would like to think that is my personal oath to the people I represent in this House.

To go one step further, I would like to let people know that when insurance became an issue in this House -- I campaigned on public insurance -- I was bombarded by people in my riding who complained about it, about the loss of jobs, about what it would do to the economy. I went personally to the minister on two occasions to report my displeasure with public auto insurance and about how it would affect people I represent in Durham East who were not necessarily New Democrats. I think I have a duty and a right to do that.

When we met in Honey Harbour about this I stood in that room and again voiced my displeasure at public auto insurance as it affected the people I represented --

Mrs Caplan: But you ran on it during the election campaign.

Mr Mills: The member for Oriole interjects and says I ran on it, and that is true, I did. But getting back to the private member's bill, I temper that with representing the people in their broad spectrum of political views. I think that is what the member today is saying we should do. I am saying that I do that, and when the member for Oriole speaks I will not interject and upset her train of thought and I hope she would do likewise.

When we came to the Sunday shopping bill, again one has to recognize that we represent so many people -- I do in Durham East -- who were opposed to that legislation. I spoke my piece on behalf of the constituents I represent there, and I do this constantly. I do not see that my principles have been changed and I do not really need an oath to tell me that I have to represent the views of my constituents.

Having said all of that, when people elect me they know that I represent the New Democrats and they know the New Democrats stand for certain things. I like to think that -- I see the member for Oriole shaking her head, I do not know why. People do elect people based on the party they represent basically.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There will be ample time to debate the issue, so I recommend that members remain quiet.

Mr Mills: Given the election process, I think it is very fair to say that when you run for a party, the goals of that party are very up front and that the people who vote for you recognize that you will, if I may put it in these terms, uphold the party line to a degree. That does not stop you from speaking out on behalf of the constituents you represent, in particular the many I represent in the riding of Durham East.

I am going to cut short my comments because another colleague in our caucus needs to speak to this bill. But before I close off, someone said to me from the news media when I completed my first year in office, "What are your goals?" I said, "I have one goal, that at the end of this present term of my office in this Legislature the people of Durham East, Conservatives, Liberals, or New Democrats, can look upon me and say that they got representation of the finest and best quality regardless of party politics."

That is what I intend to do in this House, and I thank members for the time to debate this. I will be supporting the member's resolution, although I think it is a little after the fact. On a matter of personal record, I will support it.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate today in private members' hour, but when I first saw the resolution, the bill that was brought forward by the member for Wellington, I looked at it and wondered why he had brought it forward.

At the present time in the standing orders, as the member has read out, we have an oath that pledges our allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. At first I thought his bill was designed to embarrass the NDP government, which had changed the oath for police officers in this province. I thought perhaps the member's proposed bill was to guarantee and ensure that members of the Ontario Legislature would continue in the British parliamentary tradition in this province and continue our pledge of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

I read along a little farther and I saw words in his proposed piece of legislation that I think all members of this House could agree with. Certainly it is the reason we all run for public office and stand to serve the public. In his opening remarks he talked about the need for members to take their responsibilities and duties seriously. I think what he has raised for us is an issue that goes far beyond the very simplistic approach this bill is proposing. He is a new member of the House and I have come to like and respect him.

I think his goals are very similar to mine and probably to the goals of most of the members of this Legislature who stand for public life; that is, to try to make a positive difference in this province.

The question was raised about why we need to change the existing oath of office. I would ask that question as well. It seems to me that the reason, the need right now is that in Ontario my constituents and the people of this province do not like politicians very much. They think "political" means self-serving, as opposed to serving the public interest. They are cynical and concerned, and I do not think just changing the words of the oath of allegiance that a new member of this Legislature takes is going to solve that problem.

I have spoken in this House on numerous occasions about the issue of cynicism in our society today. It concerns me greatly. I have also spoken about the need for greater integrity in public office. During election time we all talk about integrity. I have said in my remarks in this House that integrity is saying one thing during the elections and doing the same thing after you are elected. Integrity is doing what you say you are going to do. Integrity is staying true to your principles.

One of the things people in this province do not realize is that there are very specific partisan differences between the political parties in this province. The reason we often sound the same is that we have the same goals. We all enter public life to make a positive difference, to serve the public, to serve the public interest. We do not on the whole generally -- there are always examples of the few bad apples who tarnish us all -- enter public life for ego reasons, not most of us anyway. Most of us do not see politics and partisan politics as a self-serving exercise.

We believe in our philosophical partisan approaches. The New Democrats, the socialists, have a very different philosophy and a very different approach to public policy issues than do the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. We can discuss what those philosophical differences are and we can see in the approach to public policy development how the different approaches of those parties are put forward.

I think the member for Durham East raised a couple of very good examples. During the election campaign of just over a year ago, the New Democratic Party was very clear about where it stood on auto insurance. Its approach was very different than the approach that had been offered by the then Liberal government and very different from the system that had been in place under the Progressive Conservatives in this province.

The people of this province expected that if there were a Progressive Conservative government, one thing would happen, that if there were a Liberal government, something different would happen, and that if there were a New Democratic government, still another approach would be taken.

Public cynicism is going to flourish in an environment where a party once elected says: "We're not going to do that. We didn't mean it. We didn't expect to get elected." That is an issue of integrity. That is what turns people off, when they hear them stand and say one thing during election time and then they do something very different once they have the opportunity to implement those things they talked about.

I believe very strongly in the traditions of the parliamentary system. I believe very strongly that you do not change those traditions lightly. I was concerned with the way the new government changed the oath for police in this province. It was not debated in this Legislature. It was done by a stroke of the pen at the cabinet table, by order in council, with no debate, no discussion -- an important tradition.

I said we have important issues of public policy to debate. One of the concerns I have is that in private members' hour, when members are free of party discipline -- I say this very specifically to the member for Durham East, who has stood in this House with other members of the government caucus during private members' hour when the whip has been on. That means the members have been told they must vote for or against certain members' resolutions during private members' hour. We have seen it time and again.

When members should be free to speak on behalf of their constituents or use their own judgement or put forward their own ideas to debate public policy issues of the day, new members of this House in the government caucus have been told how they are expected to vote during private member's hour.

We see what happens to members of the government caucus when they do not toe the party line. We saw an example just yesterday when my colleague the member for St Catharines raised a question about the firing of the member for Lincoln, the Chair of one of our standing committees, who was fired after he voted against a government bill.

I have been in government and I have seen members of government caucuses, on points of importance to their constituents, vote against a government bill and there was no retribution. But coming from this government party we have seen a cabinet minister fired for disagreeing with the policies of his party and we have seen a committee Chair fired and then reinstated when the issue was raised in this House.

I think these are the things the member for Wellington is questioning in suggesting a change in the oath in this House, but I would say to the member that changing the words of the oath is not going to change the behaviour in this House. It is not going to change the way we treat each other, the lack of respect we sometimes see, and it is not going to change the role of the individual members and their ability to speak out within their caucus or within this House during private members' hour, because in the British parliamentary tradition the role of the party, the role of the caucus, is also a very important role.

When we stand for public office in the provincial elections in Ontario, we run as a member of a party. We can also choose to run as an independent. The member for Wellington chose to run as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and he stands for all the things the Progressive Conservative Party stood for during the election. He is accountable to his constituents for the promises and commitments the party made about the approaches it would take.

The members of the New Democratic caucus, the government caucus, the now governing party, are accountable to their constituents for the promises it made during the election. That is the way our system works. They are members of a government caucus, and as a member of this Legislature the role we undertake as a member of our party and our caucus is to speak out on behalf of our constituents with integrity in a passionate way on the issues of the day, those things that we believe in.

We enter public life because we want to make this province a better place. Within our philosophy and our principles, we want to bring forward suggestions and ideas for new legislation, new laws, new regulatory regimes or schemes or funding priorities. But each party sets forward not only its goals; it also sets forward its priorities.

I guess the concern I have is that we are not taking advantage in this House of the opportunity, even within private members' hour, to diverge, to free ourselves from caucus discipline, to free ourselves from the yoke of the whip. I can tell members that within the Liberal caucus, both in opposition and when we were in government, each of our caucus meetings was a reminder to our members that private members' hour was a free time for members to speak their minds. We did not whip our members to support a government position.

The members of this House will know there were sometimes very important issues of debate. Some of those, I would suggest, were framed by the opposition parties to embarrass the government. That sometimes happens in private members' hour. But it was a very good opportunity for us to speak our minds, free of party discipline, free of the yoke of the discipline of caucus.

I would say to the member for Wellington that changing the oath is not going to solve that problem. He has pointed out some of the problems that exist, but I believe that if we simply change a tradition in this House, we will send out a suggestion that we have fixed the problem. My concern is that we will just increase the cynicism we find in this province by suggesting that an oath is going to change anything.

I believe the public, if they are going to have respect for what happens in this Legislature, have to see question period for what it is, which to a large degree is theatre. One of my children said to me that when they watch question period they really think of it as the Young and the Restless, one of the soap operas of the day. I tell them the important debates happen in committee where you often find a lot of co-operation, where people put forward their ideas, usually in a thoughtful way. You find it during private members' hour and through the debates in this Legislature.

I would say we could have an important debate on the enhancement of the role of the individual member, finding ways to permit additional free votes, finding ways to allow members to speak their minds on behalf of their constituents, but as I sum up today, I really believe that simply changing the oath of office, while it is well intentioned, is no more than just a meaningless gesture to solve what is a very serious problem in our society.

I think if we each pledge ourselves to take the message to our constituents that what happens here is important, that we are all people of integrity although we may differ in our partisan approaches, then hopefully the people of Ontario will have more respect for all of us in public life.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to stand and support the resolution put forward today by my colleague the member for Wellington.

Unlike the member for Oriole who just spoke, I know what the word "cynicism" means and I know that voters out there are cynical. They are cynical about politicians and they are cynical and somewhat disrespectful at times of the monarchy in Canada.

This past week we had a visit from the royal family, His Majesty Prince Charles and Princess Diana. I was standing on the docks at Harbourfront last week watching the royal yacht Britannia go by when Princess Diana and Prince Charles were waving to the crowd. There was a young family there, a young couple with three small children. I overheard the husband say to the wife that they were glad to see the bums leave.

I was very saddened to hear two Canadians -- I presume Canadian citizens -- standing at Harbourfront wishing ill of the royal family. The view out there is that the royal family does not work and does not pay taxes, therefore, some people believe it is not worth while having a monarchy. Today's debate is very good in the sense that it enables us to have a few minutes to explain the role of the monarchy and the importance of the monarchy in Canada.

I say the proposed wording of a new oath by my colleague the member for Wellington is excellent. It not only contains our current oath, which is a swearing of allegiance to our sovereign and the monarchy, but it also very importantly says, "I will conduct myself with integrity and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents."

The Liberals were kicked out of office because voters were tired of Queen's Park telling them what is good for them. We have the same problem on the federal level now. Ottawa is constantly telling voters what is good for them, rather than the way Burke and the great philosophers designed the democratic system, which is that we as elected members are to go to Queen's Park and stand up and fight on behalf of our constituents to the best of our ability.

Unlike the member for Oriole, I think it is important that we include in the oath that reminder and that we swear allegiance to not only the monarchy but to upholding our responsibility as elected members to voice the concerns of our constituents on a daily basis in this Legislature. The oath needs beefing up and the member for Wellington has done an excellent job, together with legislative counsel, of coming up with what I think is a superb new oath, and I ask all members to support it.

I want to make a point about swearing allegiance to the monarchy, to the sovereign. I raised this point on April 17, the day after I heard on CFTO news that the NDP had made a closed-door decision to remove the reference to Her Majesty the Queen in the oath taken by Ontario's police officers. At that time -- and I will read it again because it is worth stating -- I read a quote from June 26, 1973, of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, at a state dinner. In this quote she talks about her role as the constitutional monarch of Canada:

"But it is as Queen of Canada that I am here, Queen of Canada and of all Canadians, not just of one or two ancestral strains. I want the crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry. The crown is an idea more than a person and I want the crown in Canada to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal."

I think that sums up very well, from Her Majesty, the role of the Queen in Canada. One of the primary roles, particularly at this crucial point in our history, is the unifying symbol that the Queen represents to all Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds. It is a unifying symbol that is most needed at this time, and I do not understand, but will not belabour the point, why the NDP, which seeks in these constitutional talks, and certainly states in these constitutional talks, that it is going to defend the interests of Canada, that it wants a united Canada, why it would take a unilateral, secret decision to remove the reference to the Queen in the oath taken by Ontario's police officers.

I suggest it was done because Susan Eng, who was appointed by the NDP to be the new chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, refused to swear an oath to Her Majesty, so she would not administer that same oath to police officers. I remind the government that the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 imposes a penalty of 500 pounds for any parliamentarian who sits in Parliament but refuses to take the oath. It also declares that parliamentarian's seat vacant. So you have no choice in the matter; if you want to sit in Parliament, you must swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

Also, in addition to declaring the seat vacant, it says that the seat is also vacated in the same manner as if the parliamentarian were dead. I suggest it is a good thing Susan Eng got an appointment and did not run for Parliament, because she would be treated as if she were dead in this chamber by refusing to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.

I want to touch briefly on some points that are raised in a book called The Crown in Canada. It is written by Mr Frank MacKinnon and it talks about why a strengthened oath to the Queen is a good idea. It says:

"The crown has helped to reinforce the sovereignty of Canada. The presence of the crown in Canada has prevented Canada and its provinces and territories from experiencing a situation where the question of legality arises regarding the government or of the political power itself."

On that, I point to the NDP government and remind the government, as I did on April 17 in my point of privilege, that our allegiance to the Queen separates us and distinguishes us from the Americans, a point that the NDP normally takes great pride in on other matters, and that our power and our legitimacy to govern are derived directly from the monarchy. As Michael Valpy said in the Globe and Mail on, I believe, 16 April: "Politicians exercise power only on sufferance. The power is on loan to them."

I suggested at that time, and although I was ruled against by the Speaker I still contend that I was right, that the government's unilateral move to remove the reference to the Queen in the oath undermined the legitimacy of Parliament, the legitimacy of this chamber and the legitimacy of our right to govern on behalf of the Queen and for our constituents.

I also make the point that the government itself only got a little less than 40% of the vote in Ontario in the last election. If members really think about it, it is the legitimacy to govern under the monarch that prevents opposition parties from questioning this government's legitimacy and its legality as a government.

Members may want to read some books on the topic. I have not time to go into it today, but this government's legitimacy to govern on 38% or 37% of the vote and our inability to question its legitimacy is all devolved from the crown and from the monarchy and from the tradition of Parliament which this government has shown very little respect for in this chamber and in its actions.

I also mention finally that the important part of changing the oath is, again, not only the swearing of allegiance to the sovereign but also the fact that we are here to govern on behalf of our constituents, to take their advice and to bring that advice forward. It is not unlike the monarchy itself. We are able to accommodate change in this province and to accommodate the views of our constituents against the backdrop of a very solid tradition of the monarchy.

There is stability in our country, unlike in the Soviet Union and in China, because we have a monarchy that, as a symbol, unites Canada, unites Canadians; and members of Parliament do not have the authority nor should ever have the will to change that. If you do not have the authority because your authority comes from the monarchy, you do not have the authority to tamper with the monarchy and its symbol and its purpose in uniting the country and uniting Canadians.

I commend the member for Wellington for an excellent new oath. I believe it is a step in the right direction in bringing decorum back to this Parliament and ensuring that members realize -- as I know the NDP member for Lincoln who voted against a tax bill the other day and was penalized for it by his Premier; that was a good example of a member voting in line with the wishes of his constituents. That is what we are here to do. Let us never forget it.

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this private member's bill, which I will be supporting. As I look at the form that has been put forward by the honourable member for Wellington, although I would like to see perhaps a little different form, on the whole it is substantially better than the oath we presently make and on that basis I am willing to support it.

As I have said on a number of occasions, we always find ourselves, when we rise to speak at private members' hour, quibbling with this point or that point, but ultimately a person has to put forward a position and we look at that position. I believe it is in the interests of making better legislation that this be put forward. I have no difficulty with most of it. I will make some substantive comments at this point.

I notice it says, "I" -- member's name -- "do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law." I have no difficulty with that. I have been a supporter of the monarchy all my life. That is not going to change at this point.

Some of the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Simcoe West I agree with in terms of the importance of the crown to our system and how the powers of the crown have devolved over the years to Parliament. It is one of the single factors which distinguishes us, in our parliamentary form of government, from the congressional system in the United States. In my view it makes us a far more representative kind of system, and all because there is such a role as the crown or the monarchy. I want to affirm that. It is appropriate that we begin with an oath as we become members of this place and representatives of the people who have elected us. It is very important to affirm that.

It goes on to say in this form of the oath that is set forward in Bill 111 "that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada." I want to speak specifically to that because of some history I have in my life, and that is, before I was a legislator, I actually was involved in

an act of civil disobedience. I make the point that it was before I was a legislator. When you become a legislator, your life becomes different. The way you live your life has to be different.

In fact at my trial, where I was eventually convicted for working with the native people in Temagami and supporting their cause, I was the only one of the people going into the trial who put in a plea of not guilty. The other people with me did not put in a plea because they questioned the whole process. I put in a plea because I was a legislator at that time. I felt that if I did put in a plea, I would be saying that I did not recognize the court. How could I do that as a legislator?

Long after I had actually committed the act that I did in working with the native people in Temagami, I decided as a legislator that I now had to approach this very differently. So I did put in a plea, albeit not guilty.

In terms of the oath here and what the honourable member is stating, "that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada," it is incumbent upon all those who attain office and who become representatives of the people that indeed they do follow the laws of the land, and I want to affirm that again. I agree with the statement that is here in this oath, "and that in carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly I will conduct myself with integrity."

With all the cynicism and negativity that has been brought forward by the honourable member for Oriole, she perhaps is right in saying that a new form of oath is not going to quell that negativity or cynicism. I can agree with that, but there does come a point when it is incumbent upon us as human beings, not just as representatives of the people, that we take seriously our responsibilities as citizens. Surely the days are not past that when we make an oath it represents truly what we believe.

I affirm the efforts of the honourable member for Wellington when he brings this forward because he is accurate and right in saying that there needs to be a focus for our commitment to the state, to the crown and to the people. Saying these things in a ceremonial form means we recognize their importance. They are things that are going to affect the way we think, the way we live and the work we do in this place. Again I affirm that particular point of view.

I am glad the member phrased the final part of this -- "and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents" -- that way because there is a great discussion afield today about recall. If a member votes a certain way on a particular bill and there seems to be, according to some standard which is undefined, a great crowd of people who disagree with the member on this bill within his own constituency, somehow that person is not representing those views. I want to read into the record Edmund Burke's recollections on this. He said:

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member for Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.

If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member of that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect."

In other words, what Edmund Burke said was that of course we have to represent our constituents. It would be wrong indeed if any member of this House did not on a very regular basis go back to his or her constituents and seek to understand their needs, aspirations and understanding of the pressing issues of the day. For instance, last Saturday I was with the dairy farmers in Victoria county. I am not an expert in agriculture, yet it is vitally important that I as the member for Victoria-Haliburton have an opportunity to address very concretely the issues and needs they raise.

In terms of representing the people, I must go speak to them and know their needs and represent those things. But I must also, in debate with my other colleagues in this House from whatever party, attempt to address the larger issues of the day and make decisions for the common good on the basis of the debate and the discussion.

The member for Oriole talked about the Liberal Party not whipping votes when it came to private members' bills. I have right here the Votes and Proceedings of the last couple of years of that Parliament and what we see, in many instances, is that the Liberal government often voted against private members' bills that came into this place. I do not know where the honourable member for Oriole was on those votes.

Mr Jordan: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 111. It has been put forward by my colleague the member for Wellington. To me, he is an excellent example of a member who has been raised and brought up through society in such a manner as to develop a character that has respect for the Queen, the oath to the Queen, the laws of Ontario and the laws of Canada. I am talking about a member who is actually in the next generation, you might say, to me. It is good to see in that age group that responsibility and interest in coming here to serve.

Relative to the bill, I think it has been pointed out that words alone will not change us. I agree. I do not have the time to go on at any length but I would like to make the point that I am definitely in favour of the change and of each member having to take that oath.

I was pleased to hear from the member for Victoria-Haliburton. I thought he made good references to it in many different ways. I would like to tie into the opening of the Legislature each day. If members think about what the Speaker says when he opens this House each day in the form of prayers, it is a reminder to each member of how we should conduct ourselves in this House and then see what happens as the debate develops. I think we should try to think back to the opening of the House and try to apply it to our thinking as we work in the Legislature during the day.

I had the pleasure yesterday to have present in the gallery a person who sat in this House as a member from 1959 to 1971. His parting words were, "I have never in all my life witnessed such carrying on and disrespect for this legislative procedure and this building."

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly this morning on the resolution of my colleague the member for Wellington. The member for Wellington is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson was always a gentleman and very well respected by every member of this Legislature for his ability to be sincere. He was one of the quiet ones, like myself.

Mr Curling: Hear, hear.

Mr McLean: That is right, I say to the member for Scarborough North.

I want to compliment the member for Wellington on his resolution. I hope it will put some decorum back into this Legislature. The part of the oath I really would like to talk about is, "I will seek to represent the views of my constituents." That has always been my view in the more than 10 years I have been here, to bring their views here, whether it be in committee or caucus, regardless of where it is.

I certainly had some problem when the reference to the Queen was taken out of the oath police officers take. I think that is one step in the direction the government wants to take, to do away with further oaths to the Queen. We even see today amendments to the Education Act with regard to prayers in the schools. I have had many constituents bring to my attention the problem they have had when parents agree with religious education and the school agrees with it for noonhour, but this government is taking that right away from those people.

We have a Premier who wants to look at a social charter. Is that social charter going to have anything in it with regard to allegiance to the Queen? I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward and hope members will see fit to support it to put some decorum back into this Legislature. I hope that when members take their oath of office that will mean they will represent all their constituents.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to take a few moments to sum up and respond to some of the comments that have been made.

I would first like to thank the member for Durham East for his participation this morning. He spoke as eloquently as usual and I appreciate his comments.

The member for Oriole suggested that perhaps this is not needed, that perhaps it is not all that necessary and would not change things. As I said in my initial comments, I do not expect it to change things overnight but I do believe the symbolism of the idea is very important and is a step in the right direction.

The member for Simcoe West talked about the importance of the monarchy. I know his very sincere commitment to those ideas and what he brings forward in this House is something very special.

I would like to respond briefly to a couple of things the member for Victoria-Haliburton said. He agreed with the central idea and I appreciated that. I was quite pleased to hear him quote from Edmund Burke, who some members may know was the father of conservatism in the western world. His comments ring true today.

I certainly appreciated the comments of the member for Lanark-Renfrew. He talked about meeting Mr Gomme yesterday, a former member for Lanark and a former Minister of Highways. I was very impressed to meet Mr Gomme. He was a very fine and distinguished gentleman. I recall him saying the same thing the present member for Lanark-Renfrew indicated: This place seems to have degenerated to a low that we have to get out of.

I appreciated the kind words of the member for Simcoe East. He talked about the former member for Wellington. Some of the members may know that I used to work for the former member for Wellington, Jack Johnson. He was a symbol of decency and integrity. I certainly hope to emulate some of the fine qualities he brought forward.

I hope this bill passes and goes to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for further discussion. I am certainly open to discussing amendments. These words are not written in stone, but I do think it would be an improvement if we expanded the oath we take.

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ASCENSEURS ET APPAREILS DE LEVAGE

The House divided on Mr Ruprecht's motion for second reading of Bill 139, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Ruprecht pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 139, mise aux voix, est adoptée.

Ayes/Pour -- 26

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Curling, Drainville, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jordan, Kormos, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock, S., Owens, Phillips, G., Poole, Ruprecht, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger.

Nays/Contre -- 14

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills.

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

Mr Ruprecht: I request that Bill 139 be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 111.

Motion agreed to.

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

Mr Arnott: To the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

The Deputy Speaker: A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill --

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There appear to be members who did not vote. It was my understanding that if members are in their seats, they are required to vote.

The Deputy Speaker: The table has reported to me that there is clearly no majority; therefore, I acted accordingly.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1208

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DONALD WILLARD MOORE

Mr Curling: I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a truly remarkable Canadian. This Saturday, November 2, Donald Willard Moore will celebrate his 100th birthday. To celebrate this event and to honour an individual who has given so much of himself to so many others, last week members of the black community held a dinner for Mr Moore. Also in attendance was my colleague the member for Willowdale.

Mr Moore, or Uncle Don as he has come to be affectionately known, first joined Toronto's then small black community in 1913. From the early 1920s onward, he was actively involved in voluntary service on behalf of black people. In recognition of his contribution to his people and his country, Mr Moore has been named to both the Order of Ontario and the Order of Canada.

Among the many causes to which Mr Moore has dedicated his life was the fight he led against Canada's unjust and discriminatory legislation in the 1950s. Donald Moore was instrumental in pointing out the inequalities and discrimination of Canada's immigration policies and seeing to it that these laws were reformed.

Along with another great black Canadian, Harry Gairey, Mr Moore was also committed to improving the working conditions of domestic servants from the Caribbean and elsewhere, who were often subjected to the worst kind of exploitation.

Mr Moore is a courageous man and a compassionate man, a man impatient with injustice and discrimination in all its forms, a man unafraid to speak out and fight for the freedom and dignity of blacks in this country. Mr Moore, happy birthday and thank you very much.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr B. Murdoch: On Monday Sklar-Peppler furniture manufacturers told more than 200 salaried and union workers that both plants in Hanover were being closed. Last night I attended an employee meeting hosted by the company to explain this distressing situation to more than 250 concerned and affected people. The company explained that as furniture sales have decreased severely, the banks have given it no option but to close the factories. They also explained that salaries and vacation would be paid, but this alone is not enough.

The company has developed a restructuring plan whereby a new company would be established with the assets of the two plants in Hanover. The employees, if they wish, may, alone or with a third party, buy this company. The owners of Sklar-Peppler have been working with officials of the Ontario Development Corp to find a solution. They are meeting again today.

This company is one of the major employers in Hanover. Given the difficult economic times that are certainly being felt in my riding, every option must be examined before we allow 200 more people to become unemployed.

The workers of Sklar-Peppler will be voting on the company's restructuring plan on November 18. If both the salaried and unionized employees vote to accept this proposal, I would like assurance from the government and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that the ODC will do everything within its power to approve a reasonable and fair financial plan to assist these people in my riding to get back to work as quickly as possible.

INTERVENORS AND SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

Mr Malkowski: I am very pleased to inform members of the House that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has today released its interim report. This is in response to resolution 13, which I presented in the House May 16, 1991.

The ministry is co-ordinating a provincial review of oral and American sign language and langue des signes québécois interpreter, intervenor and captioning services for deaf, deaf-blind, and hard-of-hearing and deafened persons. Three task force committees have been established: oral and sign language interpreter services; intervention services for deaf-blind persons, and text-based services for deafened and hard-of-hearing persons. The committees include representatives from service providers, consumer groups and trainers, and those groups are in the process of collecting information to prepare their reports.

The recommendations will then be drafted to obtain feedback from interested parties all across the province. The final report is expected in the spring of 1992.

This type of review is the first ever that has happened in North America and we are very proud of the Ontario government for taking this important first step. They have involved the community, consumers, advocacy groups and educational facilities, and we hope we will arrive at a comprehensive and practical solution.

The interim report is proof that the ministry is on the right track and we look forward to the final report in 1992.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Offer: I make this statement profoundly disappointed with the Premier. It is one that other members may not recognize but which bothers me a great deal.

As a member of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, we have conducted a great number of meetings throughout the province, listening and responding to people's opinions and concerns over the constitutional issue. The Premier has on a number of occasions complimented the committee on its work and non-partisan basis, and that is well appreciated.

Currently we are conducting hearings over federal proposals. One issue not contained in these proposals, but which in my opinion will be commented upon is the social charter proposal by the Premier. To date, the Premier has cancelled a meeting before our committee to explain this issue and did not appear before the federal committee this past Monday. As members of that committee, we do not know what the Premier means by his proposal, its implications and its impact, and he has not shared this with us.

He has found the time for some back-door meetings with the Prime Minister and other premiers on this very issue. Surely, if the Premier has the time for these meetings, he must have time for the Ontario provincial committee. We are going to be dealing with the federal paper and his own charter proposal. We need to know what his position is on his proposal. I am very disappointed in what I believe is his lack of respect for this committee and its work on this very important issue.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Stockwell: I would like to speak today on a housing issue affecting some of my constituents on Martin Grove Road and Hedges Boulevard in Etobicoke. An application has been approved by the Ministry of Housing for the Martin Grove Baptist Homes Corp to build a multi-unit development in the middle of a residential neighbourhood under the non-profit housing program.

My residents have never been given an opportunity to comment on, review or analyse this application. They feel they have been left out of the process and have been forgotten. Let me be very clear: To approve a site in the middle of a residential neighbourhood on slightly more than an acre of land with a density of 35 units is absolutely insane from a planning point of view. It does not meet the planning guidelines of the city and no planner in his right mind would recommend it. Whether it is co-operative housing, commercial and industrial development, high-priced condominiums or stack town houses in this neighbourhood, it would never be given any serious hearings by the city.

The province has now granted them financing so they may go ahead with this development, which has no planning grounds and absolutely no public input. If any private developer attempted this kind of end run it would be given the bum's rush out of Etobicoke.

It is wasteful and insulting to my constituents to use their hard-earned tax dollars to move forward on a project the government refuses to tell them anything about. It refused to show them its plans and it refused to open it up to public scrutiny.

The planning process in the city of Etobicoke has worked for decades and decades. Why is it that everyone has to live within that process except the socialists at Queen's Park who were once the purveyors of process?

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Wiseman: I would like to comment on an issue of great concern to my constituents today. It is the Interim Waste Authority and the process it is following to find a landfill site.

The first stage of this process was to set up the corporation and its officers. They were then given the responsibility to move forward on the process of finding a long-term dump in Durham. Bids were tendered by various consulting firms to do the site selection process. Within this process, public consultation was mandated. In order to facilitate this public consultation, a document was created setting out the criteria to be used for site selection. The public was then asked to comment on these criteria and to offer changes where necessary.

My constituents were somewhat hesitant to participate in this process, given the long history of landfill in my riding. However, they have participated and are finding this approach to be more open and more likely to find a suitable landfill site than previous methods.

The major change in this process is that criteria for landfill sites were determined before the selection process, and unsuitable sites will be eliminated by the criteria and not against one another. This will ensure the best site and not the best of a bad lot.

A strong component of this process is this stress on waste management and the need to recycle and reduce. As we all know, there is much each of us can do to reduce waste. We can use the blue box and we can compost.

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Daigeler: I wish to draw members' attention today to another case of blatant hypocrisy by the NDP. The government continues to claim undeserved credit for having opened up the appointments process to Ontario's agencies, boards and commissions. The government has placed numerous ads across the province advising people to submit their names for possible public appointments. In good faith, many Ontarians took the NDP at its word and sent in their résumés.

As it is, however, the government's self-professed openness is a cruel hoax. People in my riding and elsewhere are wondering why they have heard nothing in response to their applications. For example, two people in my riding sent in their résumés last July for the Nepean Police Services Board. It is now October 31 and they have not even received an acknowledgement of their letters.

If this government cannot handle the applications it receives, it should stop boasting about its fake openness. Advertising for public appointments has turned out to be a complete charade. It is time for this government to come clean and admit that the new appointments process is a total failure.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Harnick: We must never forget. This week is Holocaust Education Week, which is sponsored by the Holocaust remembrance committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. Holocaust Education Week sensitizes all of us to the horrors inflicted on the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. As the sands of time run out and the generation of Holocaust survivors comes to an end, it is important that we remember and deepen our understanding of this dark period in history.

We remember not only the victims but other testaments to human courage. We remember the resistance. We remember the liberators. We remember the spirit of survival of the witnesses. We remember the righteous among the nations. Holocaust Education Week is a significant and vital community event that enables all of us to deepen our understanding of this dark period in our century.

The goal is awareness. The lessons derived from the Holocaust must not be wasted. Millions of deaths must not have been in vain. The lessons of the Holocaust have contemporary implications that are not confined to the Jewish people but have meaning for all of us. Remembering and understanding what life was like 50 years ago will help to prevent all forms of racism, hatred, bigotry and prejudice today. The lessons of history will guide us to shape our children's future. We must never forget.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Christopherson: I rise today to highlight to all members of this House the role small business plays in our economy and at the same time applaud the economic contribution of this crucial sector. Modern economies consistently look to small business as the engine for economic growth. During the 1980s, fully eight out of 10 new jobs were created by small business. It is important for all members to note that small firms make up over 90% of the companies in every broad industry category.

One of the key responses of this government to the challenges facing small business is the formation of a committee of parliamentary assistants under the able leadership of the member for Norfolk. The member for Norfolk, who has been appointed by the Premier to be the parliamentary assistant responsible solely for small business, will ensure the committee dialogues directly with the small business community. As co-chair of the committee, I am pleased that the input we receive from the small business community will play a significant role in identifying a number of priority areas that will be tackled in both the short term and the long term.

Along with my 10 PA colleagues from related ministries, we will also examine the regulatory and financial environment for existing business, as well as the potential role of entrepreneurship in the province's economic renewal. We invite the small business community to work with us in these difficult times and advise the government on new ideas and initiatives. Together we will make our province a strong and prosperous place for small business.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members of the House to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Doug Martindale, member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Please join me in welcoming him.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am very conscious of these things, and I want to take the initiative to correct the record. Looking at something I said yesterday, I realize that if the paragraph were taken literally and out of the context of what I was saying in the previous paragraph, it could possibly mislead the House, and that is not my intention. I hope members will accept that.

It is in response to the question I was asked yesterday by the member for St Catharines. I said in that answer, "Nothing that would be done by this government would be intended in any way to intimidate or harass or prevent a member of the opposition or any member of the Legislature from carrying out his or her responsibilities."

I then went on to say in the next paragraph, "No police investigations have been ordered or directed by this government." What I should have said in that answer, what is the case, is that no police investigations into the conduct of members of this Legislature on any side have been ordered by this government. I hope members will accept that correction in the spirit in which it has been offered. I am sure there will be more to be said later on.

The Speaker: I thank the Premier for correcting the record.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE EDUCATION

Hon Mr Wildman: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Education I would like to outline for members three initiatives regarding native education. The minister is attending a day-long meeting with native leaders and is therefore unable to be here to deliver this message in person.

The initiatives I will be outlining for members are the native languages policy, the release of the Native Studies Guideline and the availability of a computer software program for the Cree language, which is a syllabic language.

First, I am pleased to announce the new policy regarding native languages. Members may be aware that a policy regarding native as a second language has been in place since September 1987. In that policy, the provision for native language instruction was optional for school boards. Beginning in September 1992, school boards will be required to offer a native languages program where the parents or guardians of 15 or more students request instruction of a native language and a qualified native language teacher is available. A school board may offer the program for less than 15 students after considering the feasibility and cost of the program.

Native language classes are to be offered during the instructional portion of the school day. If the parents or guardians wish their children to participate both in native languages and French-as-a-second-language programs or anglais programs, school boards will have to make arrangements to accommodate both programs.

A native language credit course can be recognized to replace the French-language credit course or the anglais course currently among the compulsory credit course offerings leading to the Ontario secondary school diploma. There are six native languages offered through the program: Ojibwe, Cree, Deleware, Mohawk, Oneida and Cayuga.

The Ministry of Education will continue to provide financial assistance to school boards to offset operating costs of the native languages program, and five-year support, at the rate of $200 per pupil, for development costs to new boards offering the program. The new regulation governing native languages will be in place in the spring of 1992. Following the new regulation, a policy-program memorandum will be sent to school boards by the Ministry of Education outlining the new policy in detail.

I would like to turn now to the second of these initiatives, the release of the new Native Studies Guideline. The Native Studies Guideline, intermediate division, 1991, outlines a program of native studies for grades 7 and 8 that explores community organization, social change and social conflict from a native perspective. The guideline also outlines two courses for credit that may be offered in grades 9 or 10. One of the new courses can be used to replace the compulsory course in history. In addition, it provides teachers with a foundation for integrating a native perspective across the curriculum. Native studies courses are available to native and non-native students alike.

The third and last initiative I would like to talk about is a software program for the Cree language. The Cree syllabic text editor is a user-friendly software program which not only displays the syllabic text but also speaks to the user. An audible voice pronounces syllabics which appear on the screen so that the user learns both visually and aurally. The program utilizes both eastern and western Cree syllabic texts and was developed in conjunction with Cree peoples in Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Moosonee and Moose Factory.

The text editor is currently being tested in three schools in northern Ontario. It is available to all publicly funded schools in the province, as well as in schools administered by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and band-operated schools. Funding for the development of the text editor and the Native Studies Guideline was shared between the Ontario Ministry of Education and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Through these initiatives the Ontario government has demonstrated its commitment to improving the educational experiences of native students. These initiatives will provide the opportunity, in communities where there is demand, to build towards some fundamental improvements in the quality of native education.

These changes to native education follow in the spirit of the recently signed statement of political relationship between the province of Ontario and native communities to deal with each other on a government-to-government basis. I would like to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Education and the Chiefs of Ontario for this advance in education for native people in Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Mrs Boyd: Today the Ontario government is launching a series of public meetings and consultations province-wide to discuss long-term care services and programs.

Long-term care is the joint responsibility of three ministries. I am making this statement on behalf of my ministry, the Ministry of Health, which has now taken the lead in this endeavour, and the Ministry of Citizenship.

This morning the Minister of Health made a similar statement in Kingston at Providence Manor Home for the Aged. Just about an hour ago, the Minister of Citizenship also announced the release of the consultation paper at Copernicus Lodge in west-end Toronto. This location was chosen in order to reach out to our multicultural community and encourage dialogue with groups that have traditionally been left out of our deliberations and whose voices often have not been heard.

Our purpose is to review the proposed redirection of long-term care through discussion with the people who use long-term care services, their care givers and workers in the long-term care system. We have produced a document called Redirection of Long-Term Care and Support Services in Ontario, which is designed as a consultation paper. Members received their copies this morning.

This document presents the various issues involved in long-term care, what services are needed and how to ensure that services are available to those who need them. It incorporates the proposed new directions in long-term care announced in June by my predecessor.

Let me briefly recall for the House those directions:

Expansion in funding for community support services, with flexible funding arrangements and assurance of greater community participation; better co-ordination of services through new service co-ordination agencies; realignment of funding policies to further shift the emphasis from institutional to community-based services and to reduce regional disparities; increased funding for supportive housing, and no charge to consumers for services in the home.

This Redirection paper will be widely distributed to people who have an interest in long-term care. We are asking them to read it, talk about it and think about it. Then we plan to hold meetings and workshops in communities throughout the province.

As I mentioned, the response of people who use long-term care services will be particularly valuable, and this will certainly include the consumers: those in nursing homes, homes for the aged and other care giving facilities, those living at home, those in the community and their families. We are going to do our best to include everyone with an interest in long-term care in these discussions. That means people who provide care and people who work as advocates. It means labour groups and women's groups, cultural and racial organizations and representatives of federal, provincial and municipal governments.

We are going to make sure that aboriginal peoples and the francophone community in Ontario have an opportunity to talk about their concerns and needs. We will be guided by aboriginal organizations in designing a separate consultation to plan for long-term care supports for aboriginal peoples living both on and off reserves.

These are some of the topics for consultation:

Reduced reliance on institutional care. We are planning major funding increases over the next five years to build up a solid base of community supports in home and family settings.

New links and relationships between health services and social services to allow easier access to the programs people need.

Reduction of the regional disparities now existing. No matter where people live in this province, we want them to have access to appropriate long-term care services.

This government is determined to make the consultation process both open and accessible. We are committed to listening seriously to every participant and considering all points of view. The redirection of long-term care and support services promises to be exciting. I invite the interest and support of all members of the House as we plan for the future of long-term care in Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon Mr Buchanan: A number of members have recently raised questions about our government's response to proposed revisions of the Niagara region official plan. As members may recall, these revisions are intended to relax the severance policies in agricultural areas, including a provision to allow severances to tender fruit growers for economic reasons. Under the proposed policy revisions, a tender fruit grower could get up to seven severances on a 70-acre parcel of land.

Niagara region is to be commended for its past endeavours in land use planning and in particular in its efforts to protect the agricultural land base. We understand the region passed the amendment with great reluctance. In taking this course of action, we also realize council had the interests of the area's farmers in mind.

However, we do not feel the solution to Niagara's tender fruit economic problems will be found by fragmenting the land base. In fact, we believe such actions will create further problems for agriculture in this area. We cannot forget the servicing, environmental and other problems that result from scattered development.

This government is committed to the protection of agricultural land in Ontario, including the unique Niagara fruit lands. The province does not approve of the weakening of long-standing regional policies to protect these unique, irreplaceable lands.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I place great importance on the economic needs of fruit farmers in the Niagara area. I believe we have demonstrated our commitment to agriculture. In spite of tighter budgets, cabinet recently approved an additional $6 million for horticultural crops to assist farmers this year. We are working with the farm organizations to have longer-term programs in place for next year.

In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has initiated other means of supporting Niagara area tender fruit farmers by examining alternative safety net programs and providing marketing assistance. I have also instructed the ministry's Innovation Agriculture unit to address alternative crops and markets for the Niagara area.

The federal government has allocated $100 million for horticulture and other crops across Canada. In my discussions next week with the federal Minister of Agriculture, Bill McKnight, I will be pressing for Ontario's fair share of this funding, which would directly assist horticultural producers in the Niagara area.

Within my ministry, we have a committee looking at other options to help the tender fruit industry, many of which were presented in the Niagara task force report.

I want to share with the House, as we have already done with the regional chairman of Niagara, Mr Wilbert Dick, our initial response to the region's proposals.

It is important that the government respond quickly to these proposals because the region has decided to implement the amendment after November 1. This means that the region's land division committee could grant severances under these new policies after November 1.

We are advising the region today, in a letter signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the proposed policies for economic severances for tender fruit growers, severances for family members, the creation of new lots for infilling in the unique agricultural areas and the removal of the existing grandfathering provision applicable to retirement lots cannot be approved.

We have also decided to defer the decision on the proposed policy that allows downsizing of tender fruit operations, as more time is needed to evaluate this option. We have instructed our staff to meet with regional officials and the farm community to discuss the implications of the downsizing proposal. A decision will be made on this issue very soon.

We have also instructed staff to appeal all severance applications which do not meet the currently approved regional policies to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I hope the members of the House understand the reasons for our actions today. The long-term solutions to economic problems facing our agricultural communities are not achieved by paving over or fragmenting irreplaceable farm land. We will continue to pursue solutions to the economic problems before us, as our collective resources will be needed to improve the viability of farming. I