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

February 6, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L141 - Mon 6 Feb 1989 / Lun 6 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

LOUISE DE KIRILINE LAWRENCE

LEGISLATIVE PAGE

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS / JEUNES CONTREVENANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

CHILD CARE

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

CROP INSURANCE

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

ONTARIO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION PROGRAM

PLANT CLOSURES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Ms. Bryden: I want to draw to the attention of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that last week it appears that the no-pets clause in an apartment lease was used to obtain an eviction notice against Marian and Richard Ryll. It appears that their only offence is that they own a cat, but did sign a no-pets clause because there was no other kind of lease offered to them.

I would like to suggest that the Attorney General must bring in an immediate amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act to outlaw no-pets clauses, because they are being abused by many landlords to obtain vacant possession of buildings that they wish to raise the rents on or convert to condominiums, and they are discriminatory against all the people who are tenants. Forty per cent of the population of the province are tenants, 50 per cent in Metro Toronto. They do not have the right to have the pleasure of owning a pet.

It seems to me we must rectify this discrimination against them as soon as possible. I hope that the Attorney General will make a commitment to bring in a bill immediately, and certainly before this eviction takes place on April 1.

LOUISE DE KIRILINE LAWRENCE

Mr. Harris: I rise today to pay tribute to internationally acclaimed author, naturalist and humanitarian Louise de Kiriline Lawrence of North Bay, on the occasion of her 95th birthday this past week. Few Canadian women have experienced life as richly as Louise de Kiriline Lawrence.

Born into an aristocratic family in Sweden, she served as a Red Cross nurse during the Russian Revolution, where she met and married Gleb de Kiriline, their incredible story being told in her book Another Winter, Another Spring.

Following the tragic events of her husband’s capture and ultimate execution, she emigrated to Canada, settling in northern Ontario where Nurse de Kiriline and her sled dogs became a familiar and welcome sight. A call from Dr. Norman Dafoe to become head nurse for the Dionne quintuplets began and ended a new

chapter in her life, for she left nursing after that experience to find peace and tranquillity in the natural world.

A log cabin home in the pines of Pimisi Bay between North Bay and Mattawa became the ideal base from which to pursue a new vocation as a naturalist. Her observations, as recorded in The Lovely and the Wild, won her the coveted John Burroughs Medal and the Sir Charles G. D. Roberts Special Award from the Canadian Authors Association. Many of her articles have been published over the years in Audubon magazine.

I regret to inform the House that her husband, Len Lawrence, to whom her book The Loghouse Nest is dedicated, passed away last week. I join with all members in expressing sympathy for her loss and in paying tribute in celebration of the life of a truly remarkable Canadian, Louise de Kiriline Lawrence.

LEGISLATIVE PAGE

Mrs. Fawcett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you and the members of this House have noticed a new page in our midst. It is my pleasure to introduce to everyone Leila Kumpula from my riding of Northumberland.

Why is Leila just now joining us? Approximately four weeks ago, while en route to begin her duties at Queen’s Park, Leila and her family stopped off to do some skiing at Kirby. As ill luck would have it, she suffered an accident, dislocated her kneecap and wound up in Scarborough Centennial Hospital where a complete leg cast was put on. Her doctor has now given her permission to put some weight on the leg and, after considerable pleading with the medical authorities and her family, Leila has joined her companion pages for the rest of the term of duty.

I noticed last week, though, that medical history may have been made in that it appears this affliction may be contagious. As I happened to look up to find Leila coming into the House followed by two pages, all three possessed the identical limp.

Seriously, though, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House will commend Leila for her commitment, determination and enthusiasm for her duties, a lesson we can all take to heart.

Please join me in welcoming Leila Kumpula from Northumberland to Queen’s Park.

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Mr. Philip: Today, I am introducing a private member’s bill amending the Landlord and Tenant Act to ban any provision in a lease prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet. The ruling by Judge Gotlib on February 2 was that either the Rylls must move out of their apartment or get rid of their cat, Fluffy. The judge also told the court that it is up to the lawmakers of the province to pass a law specifically banning such contracts if they believe they are unfair.

On January 9, I pointed out to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that some 10,000 animals are being euthanized in Ontario each year as a result of no-pets clauses which force responsible pet owners, such as seniors, to dispose of their pets. The Attorney General’s callous response was, “These people must decide sooner or later whether they wish to keep pets or not.”

The Landlord and Tenant Act clearly provides for the removal of a pet where that pet is destroying property or bothering other tenants. No-pets clauses punish the innocent, responsible pet owner instead of focusing on those few who are irresponsible.

According to the court decision, Fluffy, a 16-year-old, spayed, declawed, partly blind cat, and her family will no longer be able to reside in their apartment. My bill, if passed, will save the lives of an estimated 10,000 Fluffys each year in Ontario. It will also save the heartache of 10,000 families or individuals faced with the problem of having to choose between their pets or a roof over their heads.

I urge the government to introduce similar legislation. I urge the Attorney General to show a little more empathy.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Jackson: I rise to draw attention to the Young Offenders Act and the manner of its implementation in this province. In my own community of Burlington, an 18-year-old triple murderer was recently released. Halton Regional Police know who he is but not where he lives, and this information was only provided after I raised the matter in the Legislature.

Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police, whose duty is to protect the municipality’s over 400,000 residents, have not been so notified, this despite the fact that the young offender spends every working day at his place of employment in Hamilton.

In my own community posters have appeared warning, a triple murderer is “coming soon to a community near you.” While I do not support the tactics or the method employed to convey them, the fears of my constituents are very real and very understandable.

The government can, by order in council, decide to notify a school principal, the local police or others who are directly affected of the killer’s record and identity. It could and should take this step. The government could have told the Midland police chief of the existence of a young offenders group home in his community.

The Liberals could have released to Metropolitan Toronto Police the names and identities of young offenders at the York Detention Centre. This might have allowed police, working with one offender’s mother, to meet the escapees at a Highway 401 gas station instead of having to cope with the carnage of a high-speed auto accident.

The federal government must act to correct the Young Offenders Act --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Jackson: -- the brainchild of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Poole: In September 1988, the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, entitled Transitions, was released. This committee was appointed in 1986 by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and has recommended a major restructuring of Ontario’s social assistance system. The report debunked the myth of the so-called welfare bum and revealed that over 70 per cent of those on benefits are children, sole-support parents and the disabled.

The government is currently examining the report in its entirety, not only to cost the 274 recommendations but also to determine how reforms can best be implemented within our budgetary responsibilities. We already know the cost of reform will be high. Initial calculations indicate that the cost of the first stage alone will be approximately $600 million.

It is obvious this government is committed to reform. While awaiting the SARC report, the government spent $337 million in improvements to social assistance. I believe the real challenge now, the challenge for each and every member of this House, is to find a way to finance the SARC reforms so that we may translate this commitment into action.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: Once again, we see that the Liberal government of David Peterson cannot be trusted to keep its promises. More than a year ago, on January 7, 1988, I pointed out to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) that a majority of rental buildings constructed since 1975 are registered as condominiums. At any time, the tenants can be evicted as the units are sold. The minister’s response was that she was talking to all people who were concerned about this and would try hard to protect the tenants.

On April 27, the minister promised to respond to my question in the House and stated that she would consider the whole issue when looking at the Rental Housing Protection Act. The Rental Housing Protection Act has now been introduced by the Minister of Housing; however, it contains no protection for the people who have lived for years in a building they consider to be a rental building and who are being evicted as these units are being sold off as condominium units.

It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the more than 100,000 private sector apartment units built since 1975 are technically registered as condominiums, even though they have always been rented out strictly as rental apartment units. At any time, the owner of the building can announce that he is deciding to sell each unit. This means that in Ontario we have a potential of 80,000 families being evicted.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Philip: The minister has broken her promise to 80,000 families.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. Statements by the ministry. None? No statements?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I believe the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) was to make a statement. He is tied up in traffic. If you wish unanimous consent, I am quite happy to -- I do not want to hold up the House. He will make a statement upon his arrival. He is due.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not think it would be appropriate to proceed. There are 12 cabinet ministers listed as being away. The minister who is supposed to make a statement on a very important issue is not here. I think we should recess until there are some cabinet ministers here.

Mr. Harris: I would concur with the suggestion that is being put forward by the House leader for the New Democratic Party. I would further suggest that, due to the efforts of both the NDP House leader and myself, we are probably able to proceed right now, because I see the minister finding his place.

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to call for ministerial statements once again.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I apologize to the House for being late.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would like to report to the Legislature today on two tragic incidents over the past few days involving young offenders. As members will no doubt be aware, early on Friday morning Krista Sepp, an employee of Kinark Child and Family Services in Midland, was brutally murdered. Two people, including one young offender, have been charged in her death.

Also on the weekend, seven youths who were awaiting trial escaped from custody at my ministry’s York Detention Centre; five of those youngsters were later killed in an automobile accident on Highway 401 near Napanee.

On behalf of the government, I want to extend my condolences to the families of all six individuals who died over the weekend. I am sure all members will join me in sharing the sense of grief those families must now be feeling.

The police have investigated and are continuing to look into both of these incidents. As well, the coroner is investigating the murder of Krista Sepp and the events leading up to her death.

While the Young Offenders Act and the police and coroner’s investigations place some restrictions on my ministry’s ability to investigate, my staff have been investigating both of these incidents, and I would like to report to the House on the information I have available to me at this time.

Kinark Child and Family Services operates a group home in Midland for emotionally disturbed youngsters. The facility is funded by my ministry and has a capacity of four. At the time of the incident, there were two young offenders housed in the group home. Staff of my ministry in conjunction with Kinark have been reviewing the procedures that were followed in the case. At this time, however, the police and the coroner are still investigating this tragedy. As a result, I am not at liberty to discuss any of the details leading to the death of Krista Sepp.

My staff and staff of Kinark Child and Family Services are working with police and the coroner to provide any information they may require in their investigations. As well, my ministry will be continuing to review all of the events leading to this incident. As I will discuss later and in more detail, the government is going to examine all of the broad questions raised by this tragedy.

With regard to the escape of seven youths from my ministry’s York Detention Centre, I would like to provide the following details. On Friday evening, the York Detention Centre was operating with a staff of 13 and 40 residents. The escape occurred from a part of the detention centre that is called the boys’ unit.

There were nine youths in the unit with a normal staff complement of two workers. One of the workers took a resident to see the staff doctor and had another resident accompany him. Shortly after that worker left, seven of the remaining youths surrounded the other worker, took her keys and locked her in a room. As a safety precaution, workers are required to carry keys to the fire escape at all times. The youths used that key to open the fire escape door and left the building.

The events following their escape are currently under investigation by the police. However, all members know that five of the escaped youths were killed in a terrible accident on Highway 401 near Napanee.

There are many more questions to be answered about both incidents, but one horrible fact remains clear: Six people are dead. However, we must deal with the serious issues raised by the events of the last few days. This morning, the Ontario Attorney General (Mr. Scott) wrote the Honourable Doug Lewis, Minister of Justice, requesting immediate attention be given to the pressing need to amend the Young Offenders Act. This is a follow-up to his unanswered letter of November 17 to Mr. Lewis’s predecessor.

Today, I am calling on the Minister of Justice to immediately convene a meeting of all attorneys general from across Canada to review and examine the act and our experience to date. I am also announcing today two reviews, which will begin immediately.

First, my ministry will review security measures in place at all secure detention, secure custody and observation and detention homes directly operated by my ministry. The review will be carried out by my ministry staff in co-operation with staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ontario Provincial Police.

Second, we will begin an immediate review of the staffing guidelines in facilities housing young offenders. This review will look at staffing in those facilities directly operated by the government, as well as those transfer payment agencies which admit young offenders to their programs on behalf of the ministry.

We are particularly concerned about providing guidance as to when more than one staff person should be on duty. I repeat, the reviews will begin immediately and I expect to receive the reports within 90 days.

The events of the last few days have been tragic, but we in government and the members of this Legislature have to be concerned about a side-effect of these events. Many Ontario citizens are questioning the safety of any group home, no matter which group it serves. Many people may have lost confidence in the service sector’s ability to deliver effective community-based programs while at the same time protecting the security of those communities.

That confidence must be restored. This government is committed to restoring that confidence. It is committed to delivering services to people in their communities. The reviews I have announced today will now become an essential element in that direction, and I call on all members of this Legislature to work with us.

RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS / JEUNES CONTREVENANTS

Mr. B. Rae: This is indeed a very sad day for all of us in the Legislature. It has been a weekend in which we have heard news that has shaken all of us. It has shaken the family and the community in Sault Ste. Marie and the family of Krista Sepp. Krista had been working for a short two weeks after her graduation from a community college program and was killed while working in a group home on Saturday night in Midland. All of our thoughts and our hearts go out to the Sepp family on this occasion, as they do to the families of the young men who were killed in the car accident near Napanee after escaping from a detention centre.

We have many questions about what has taken place. We have many questions about why a young woman was working alone on a Saturday night in a group home. We have many questions about how it is that this could have happened. We want to know how many other people are working in equally difficult circumstances.

I hear what the minister says when he says there has been a loss of confidence, and all of us have to respond to that. I want to say to the minister that there has indeed been a loss of confidence; there has been a loss of confidence in the public and among the workers in group home centres, and indeed by the young people themselves who are in these detention centres, because I do not think the government has done what needs to be done in terms of coming to grips with young offenders, with kids who are in trouble and troubled, with their needs as well as with the needs of the community.

We will have an opportunity, I hope, later on this afternoon to debate at some length the history of this very difficult but vital subject. It is one that has troubled us in our party for a very long time, as the minister will know. I will have some questions for the minister later on in question period about what has happened and what the minister knows.

The laws are supposed to be there to do three things: (1) to protect the public, (2) to protect the workers who are acting on behalf of the public and (3) to do what we can to ensure that kids in need get the kind of care, the kind of attention and the kind of help and assistance that they need.

Those three objectives should not be impossible to arrive at, but I think we have all been reminded how difficult it has proven to meet those three objectives: (1) protecting the public, making sure that the public is secure in the knowledge that the best efforts of government and professionals alike are being directed to their protection, a perfectly legitimate and fundamental basis of a democratic society; (2) that the professionals and other people working be protected themselves and have the protection and support of their government and of their taxpayers as they carry out a very difficult job, and (3) that the kids themselves, many of whom are troubled, who are crying out for help, get the kind of help and attention that they need.

C’est une journée très triste à nos débats. Nous venons de vivre une tragédie, où six enfants si jeunes sont morts : où une jeune femme, qui venait de compléter ses études et de commencer son travail dans un centre pour jeunes, est morte ; où cinq autres sont morts après avoir quitté l’endroit où ils étaient détenus -- si vous voulez -- par l’état.

C’est une tragédie. Nous avons le droit de poser des questions profondes au gouvernement, pour savoir comment cela a pu se passer dans notre province.

Mr. Brandt: I first of all want to join the minister in extending my condolences and sympathies to the families that are so deeply hurt by the loss of six lives that occurred over this past weekend. It is a terrible, terrible sequence of events that led to the loss of these six lives, and I know that it has very deeply and in a very real sense impacted on every member of this Legislative Assembly.

In connection with the statement of the minister, I do want to say that there are a number of questions that my party will have shortly in connection with what occurred. There is very little new information in what the minister has released to us today, and he has indicated that much of the information will in fact develop after a fuller investigation has occurred by his ministry and by the Ontario Provincial Police.

Some of the questions that we have of course surround the situation that occurred in Midland at the group home with Krista Sepp and the very unusual circumstances that would find a young lady, a recent graduate of a community college program, having spent less than two weeks on the job, being found alone in circumstances that I think all of us would agree are at least reasonably dangerous under the best of circumstances.

To have one staff person there, I would suggest to the minister -- and I know that one of the things the minister is going to be looking into is the appropriate levels of staff and the situation that developed resulting in only one staff member being in attendance -- really raises some concerns and questions on our part. We agree with him that has to be looked at very carefully.

I want to say as well that in our party we are prepared to join the government and the minister in pursuit of appropriate changes to the Young Offenders Act, which we believe is in need of changes after some eight years that the act has been in existence.

We have been calling for changes which specifically will address questions like sentencing and also questions like the appropriate level of communications with local authorities, such as the police representatives in those areas, in order to make sure that there is in fact a balance between the need we all see to attempt to rehabilitate these young people who have gotten themselves into very difficult circumstances and, on the other hand, the very real need to protect the important interests of the community at large.

There are some of us who believe very strongly that particular balance is not in order at the moment and that revisions and changes as a result of now having some experience with the act are very much in order. As an indication of the direction that our party would like to go, I have today written to the Minister of Justice indicating some specific changes we would like to see occur. I would be more than happy to share those with the minister as well, and hopefully we can find some common ground to move together in an attempt to rectify the kinds of problems that occurred over this past weekend.

Again, I feel badly, as I know the minister does, as to what actually occurred and the circumstances that surrounded that. I just hope that we can work in as nonpartisan a way as possible and in a nonparochial way to try to find some solutions to what are devastating problems, very serious incidents that have to be dealt with in a responsible way and that, hopefully, can be corrected by the collective efforts of the members of this assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Community and Social Services arising out of the tragic events this last weekend.

The minister in his statement today says, “...we will begin an immediate review of staffing guidelines in facilities housing young offenders.” Can the minister tell us what regulations are now in place under his jurisdiction, under his responsibility, on staffing guidelines? Following that question, I wonder if the minister can explain how it was possible that a young woman, who was so new to the job and so inexperienced, was left alone on a Saturday night, responsible for those under her care in the group home in Midland on Saturday.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two regulations which speak to staffing guidelines. Generally they say that one staff person per eight is the minimum and that one staff person at night, when the others are asleep, is the minimum. In terms of our actual contractual arrangements with community agencies, that is changed if the nature of the residents is other than what would be the norm for the service of that agency.

In this particular situation, the house would normally have four people and two staff. It was down to two residents and one staff. There was some concern a couple of weeks ago in this house, and an extra staff person was put on for a week. When those concerns did not appear to materialize, the staffing ratio was returned to what it was before.

The decision to have this particular young lady on at that time, with her lack of experience, is one we are still questioning ourselves. But in terms of the numbers, the agency was living up to the guidelines which are currently in effect. Because of that experience, I have indicated that obviously those guidelines, those regulations, must be reviewed, because there will be situations where they are not appropriate. Obviously, this is one of them.

Mr. B. Rae: It is my understanding that as a result of internal ministry studies with respect to staffing, with respect to the pay of staff and with respect to the risks in the system because of staffing problems, the Ministry of Community and Social Services in fact applied to the Management Board of Cabinet for an additional $6.8 million as of August 1988, and that request is simply on hold.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, were there any internal studies within his ministry dealing with questions of staffing and staffing guidelines and the pay of staff in groups homes under his jurisdiction; is there in fact a request before Management Board for additional funds and what has happened to that request?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There was not an internal review in terms of staff numbers, other than, as I say, that it is a question we deal with on an individual basis with agencies, depending upon the particular group of young people they are serving.

There has been a review, and I believe I have responded to that in this House before, with respect to the salary and wages of a number of community groups. Young offenders was one of them. Those dealing with the developmentally handicapped was another. Homemakers was another. Foster parents was another.

We as a ministry, as all ministries are expected to, have shared that information and our recommendations with Management Board. They are under review at present. No final decision has yet been made.

Mr. B. Rae: By way of final supplementary on this round, the minister will no doubt be aware of the coroner’s report signed by Dr. Ross Bennett, who is the chief coroner of Ontario, when Celia Ruygrok died on July 6, 1985. I wonder if the minister can tell us what action was taken by his ministry in response to this particular recommendation from the coroner’s inquest.

Admittedly, the recommendation dealt with a federal institution dealing with parolees from federal penitentiary, but I would like to ask the minister, was this coroner’s jury recommendation considered by the ministry and what was the response?

The recommendation is that “Facility security guidelines be included in the Standards and Guidelines for Community Residential Facilities to address such issues as alarm systems, personal security, staffing and general building security.”

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When those were drawn to our attention, we understood that they were at the time more concerned about adult offender halfway houses. We had indicated that it would be more appropriate for consideration and review of those particular recommendations within the Ministry of Correctional Services, and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) has in fact responded to those.

Within our own ministry, since we do not operate what could be called halfway houses -- we have open-custody facilities and we have secure-custody facilities -- we have very firm term dispositions from the courts that we are bound to live up to, other than going back to the court and asking it to review that decision.

As I indicated earlier we do, however, have staffing guidelines. We do have call arrangements within the various facilities so that if there is a need for more staff to be brought on, there is in fact a communications arrangement to do that. We do that directly through our transfer payment agencies. We do it through our children’s aid societies, which in fact relate to the transfer payment agencies.

That is as far as we have gone at this present time, other than the review which I have already announced.

Mr. Speaker: New question; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I was going to address this question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), but he is not here, so I want to address it to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister may not be as familiar with the Occupational Health and Safety Act as his colleague the Minister of Labour, but the minister will no doubt perhaps be aware that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act a number of things are supposed to happen.

When a death occurs in a workplace -- and the Midland group home is a workplace -- the director in the Ministry of Labour is supposed to be informed within 48 hours and an immediate inspection is supposed to take place to find out whether there has been a contravention, a breach, a breaking of the act in any way.

Section 14 of the act says it is the obligation of every employer to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.” I wonder if the minister can tell us, does he feel confident -- and I will repeat the act’s wording, “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” -- that every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of Krista Sepp had in fact been taken by the employer in this case?

Hon Mr. Sweeney: It is much easier to make those decisions in hindsight than it is to make them before. However, let me share with my honourable colleagues what in fact we knew before.

There were two residents in this facility. Each of them had a very disturbed history, but during the period of time that they were actually in the residence, all of the professional attention that they were given indicated that they were not a serious threat. The young girl, for example, who had previously been at Cecil Facer Youth Centre and was moved to this residence, had been there for over four months and had not indicated during those four months that she was going to act in any violent or aggressive way.

What I am trying to say is that, based upon the information that was available prior to this incident, there was no reason to believe that there was a serious threat to the young counsellor.

I would also point out that a few weeks ago when there was an apparent threat, Kinark Child and Family Services did double the staffing for a period of approximately a week to respond to that apparent threat. When nothing resulted, the extra staff person was taken off.

In response to the question, I guess all I can say is that given what we knew at the time, the answer would be no; given what we know now, the answer obviously would be very different.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is being very cryptic, if I may say so, in terms of his answers. I know he is in some sense bound by the law, as are we all, in terms of charges being laid and so on, and we are not able to comment on information. The hard fact remains that a young woman is dead and that she was placed in charge of a group home where there had apparently been some signs of a problem a couple of weeks before, according to what the minister has just told us. That led to an additional staff person being there for a week and then the additional staff person being taken off. Why?

Because they did not have enough money? Because they decided they would rather not spend the money on that? For what reason, the minister has not told us.

The Sepp family and everybody are entitled to more answers than the ones we are getting from the minister. I have asked the minister very specifically, does he feel every precaution was taken that would protect a worker? She was working on this job. This is her job. She cannot refuse to do this job --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: -- because of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. She is not covered by it. She has no choice. The only protection she has is the sense that the government and her employer are there behind her.

I am asking the minister, is he satisfied that there are no Krista Sepps out there tonight who are going to be working alone in some conditions of risk and danger simply because either the money is not there, or the guidelines are not there or the simple political will is not there to see we do this job properly?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member very correctly observed that I am somewhat restricted by the fact there is an investigation and a charge has been laid against two people. I cannot speak in any way whatsoever that would direct attention either towards or away from the investigation that follows that charge. Quite frankly, there are many things about the incident itself that I honestly do not know. That has not been shared with us.

As I am sure the honourable member will be aware, the police contacted both Kinark and ourselves and said in effect that they were responsible for the investigation and we had to be very careful how we participated in it. The best information we have is that there was no apparent danger from the two residents within the house. The caution was with someone else outside of the house -- I do not know all the details yet, other than what has been reported in the press -- and it was for that reason the extra staff person was put on, not because of the potential danger from within the house but rather from without.

Mr. B. Rae: This question of morale and the question of access to homes and so on has been raised many times in this House. It was raised most recently on February 1 by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan).

In light of what the minister has told us and in light of the fact it may well be that one of the problems is the ministry’s own lack of political leadership on this issue, the government’s own failure to deal with the question of proper funding and to develop staff guidelines when asked to do so by many others in the field, would the minister not agree that rather than having an internal review conducted by many of the same officials who have been supervising this field and who have been advising the minister for so many years, we would all be better off to have a full, open, public inquiry that would deal directly not only with what has taken place, but frankly with the responsibility of government and governments for the problem that is out there and that has so obviously contributed to the problems we are experiencing now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, there is a police investigation going on right at this time. I indicated to him that from an internal point of view, there are three different sources. It is not just our ministry: Our ministry is included, the Ministry of Correctional Services is included and the Ontario Provincial Police is included. All those have knowledge and experience in this field, which I believe we have a responsibility to tap into to try to get the answers we want.

I point out to the honourable member with respect to the government’s financial contributions that the budget for Kinark Child and Family Services was substantially increased over the past two years by approximately $2 million, including $500,000 with respect to program changes.

The second point I draw to his attention is that the staff salary ranges at Kinark are twofold. The first range is from $19,900 to $26,000. The second range is from $26,000 to $32,000. We can all question whether that is enough, but it certainly does indicate the range in which salaries are being paid to those employees for providing that service.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the same minister. During the estimates of July 1986, the minister indicated it was his ministry that convinced judges to send young offenders to community-based programs in open, as opposed to secure, settings. I believe at that time it was reasonably well known this was something judges were reluctant to do. In those particular estimates the minister stated, “The judges were very concerned about the capability of the ministry to deliver.”

During the same estimates period in July 1986, one of his officials stated that he would have guidelines in place for programs dealing with young offenders and their placement in the community. My question to the minister is, when were those guidelines established, how widely were they circulated, and how often would the ministry review privately run homes to ensure that those guidelines were being followed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of the 1986 estimates the honourable member refers to was in response, I believe -- the member can correct me if I am wrong -- to a question being raised as to why so many more young offenders were now being placed in open custody, rather than secure custody as they had been earlier.

My response was that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the courts and the judges simply did not have the authority to place them directly in open custody. What they did under that act was to sentence a young person to a training school for an unlimited period of time, and it was then at the discretion and the judgement of my ministry officials to keep him in that training school for however long, and then transfer him to a community setting for the balance of the time.

Under the Young Offenders Act, there is a significant change, and that is that the judges now make a specific disposition, either to secure custody or to open custody, and they make it for a specific period of time. I was saying that because of that change in the authority given to the judges, many more of them were placing young people in open custody, simply because they felt that was the most appropriate place for them to put them.

I then went on to say that this imposed upon us as a ministry the responsibility to have available all of the necessary open custody spaces to which judges would send young people. We had no discretion there. We simply had to provide it.

Mr. Brandt: There is at least one point of agreement generally throughout this House, and that is that after eight or nine years the Young Offenders Act must be updated to reflect the realities of today as well as the experience we have gained over that period of time.

In light of the fact there are some disagreements, to put it mildly, between the federal and the provincial government in connection with funding and certain specific areas in connection with the Young Offenders Act, is the minister prepared to take a look at the complete total act as it impacts on Ontario by way of a public inquiry? Under those circumstances, this inquiry will not, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B.

Rae) has already stated, involve those people who are necessarily closest to the situation itself, but will open the whole matter up for the public to take a look at this particular act and the way in which it might be modified or changed, or at the problems that are inherent in the act as it stands now.

What I am asking is, will his ministry agree to a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is perhaps well aware of the fact that the act was passed in the federal House in 1982, I believe. It was not implemented in Ontario until 1984. One of the reasons was the one the member raised, and that is some dispute between the federal and the provincial government as to who was going to pay for the added expenses that would naturally flow from the expanded service. In 1984, I presume that was resolved to the best will of the two levels of government and we now have essentially that in place.

The honourable member will perhaps also be aware of the fact that both the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and myself had indicated to the federal Minister of Justice from 1985 on that there needed to be some changes made. In 1986, in fact, some changes were made. One the member will perhaps recall was the ability of the police to release the name of a young offender under certain circumstances; there were other changes but that was one of them.

During that time and since, the Attorney General has on a number of occasions advocated further changes, and I believe he is not the only Attorney General in Canada to do so. I indicated in my statement today that as of today a letter has gone to the Honourable Doug Lewis, once again from our Attorney General and I support this letter, requesting that all of the attorneys general, federal and provincial, sit down together and make the kind of review the member has indicated himself.

We believe it is important for our Ministry of Correctional Services and for our police forces --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: The minister is quite correct in that the act was proclaimed in Ontario in 1984. Since that time, there have been various requests from judges, from those in law enforcement and from elected officials, asking for some changes to the act in order to reflect some of the problems that have been identified.

In November 1988, the Attorney General wrote to the then Minister of Justice requesting some changes to the Young Offenders Act, as I believe was the case and I think the minister indicated this in his statement today. The minister has again written to the newly appointed Minister of Justice pointing out some of the provincial difficulties and problems, I would presume, and asking for a complete review on a Canada-wide basis involving all the ministries of justice in all provinces and the federal government.

Since the minister is not prepared to commit to a full and total inquiry as to what is going on with respect to the actual administration of the act, is the minister prepared to indicate the position of his government with respect to the changes he wants to see occur and which he is in the process of negotiating with the federal government, starting with his letter of November 1988 and coming up to date with the letter he has just sent as a result of the tragic weekend we have experienced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are a number of areas, but there are three we have drawn to the attention of this Legislature on a number of occasions.

The first one deals with the whole question of communication, in which I indicated there has been a partial change: But to whom may we communicate information and under what circumstances? We feel at the present time that even though there is a

section within the act that gives us some discretion, it is fairly tightly constrained and we need a clearer understanding, and I would suggest it has to be similar across the country.

The second one was with respect to a number of challenges judges have indicated in terms of who goes where. I think the honourable member is well aware of the fact there were two or three provincial court judges who clearly said they disagreed with the kinds of dispositions they were allowed to make and who in fact were withholding making any decisions at all until they had been reserved by a higher court. We want that checked.

The third one, and the one to which the Attorney General has spoken on a number of occasions, is the three-year limitation on serious offences. Flowing from that would be a review of how, when and under what circumstances a young offender would be transferred to an adult court as opposed to staying in a juvenile court.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is also for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the minister is aware, we have program advisers who license and also review licences of our child care centres. The fact is that the resources are simply not available to follow through with a great many of the recommendations of his limited staff who are even able to carry out the licensing reviews.

The minister has known of the weaknesses in the investigation practices. In fact, for the last two years there has been an ongoing review of the program advisers’ role, workload and function. We know the inspection and enforcement practices in centres throughout the province are inconsistent and often ineffective. Many centres do not and cannot comply with current legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Cunningham: Would the minister advise the House that he will move to address these problems as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that I brought into the House, I believe it was about two weeks ago, the parent poster that is going to be put into all our 2,500 day care centres. The six-month pilot program associated with that had brought to our attention a number of inspection-monitoring procedures that we were not totally pleased with.

In addition to putting the poster up, we were also immediately launching a complete review of our inspection and monitoring procedures. I can add today that two full-time people have been seconded from the ministry to specifically do that job. When we have that information, I think I can reasonably assure the honourable member that changes will be made.

Mrs. Cunningham: The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care held a press conference today outlining a number of recommendations for immediately improving quality inspection in our day care centres. Their first recommendation, with regard to the minister’s recently announced review of inspection which he just talked about, is that the minister table in the Legislature within 90 days an interim report outlining the progress of the review and issue a fully revised inspection and enforcement procedure within six months.

Any new procedures must address the workload, role and function of the program advisers. Will the minister state in the House today that he will keep this Legislature informed of the progress of the review by tabling within 90 days a report that will include specific recommendations for improvements to the inspection and enforcement procedures within six months?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am quite prepared to share with my honourable colleagues, and I think I have demonstrated that in the past, any information I have. I am not certain whether I can make the 90-day commitment; I will certainly attempt to do so. I am as interested in getting the information as soon as the honourable member is, and when I have it will share it with her.

However, I would point out to her, as I shared with her in the estimates debate just this past week, that one of the difficulties we are facing is that the 52 inspectors or program consultants we have across the province also have other tasks. She is well aware that the pressure in communities to provide more subsidies and licensed spaces, to allocate the direct grants and to work with workplace day care opportunities, takes a certain amount of their time as well.

The decision I am being asked to make now, and that is my decision and I accept responsibility for it, is to balance the amount of time those program consultants, who are certainly working long, full days, should be spending on the inspection side as opposed to the amount of time they should be spending on the program implementation side.

The obvious solution would simply be to have more people; however, the honourable member is well aware of the kinds of pressure and criticism I am under when I want to put more people in the field to do these kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response, we will give the member the information as soon as we have it.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am happy to hear the minister will at least try to meet that 90-day commitment, because I think it is a reasonable request.

One of the great concerns we have in Ontario right now is that this government has studied the system to death. The professionals in the field are very much aware of what should happen. We all know part of the problem is how people spend their time. We know that when the minister is doing his work, he will find there is a way of spending one’s time more efficiently. However, we are looking at a time frame for the province right now. We do not want the parents of the children to have to wait much longer for the kinds of recommendations and serious changes to legislation than they already have.

If the minister could come up with an interim report in 90 days, we are looking very clearly at a time frame of not more than six months before we have some very specific recommendations on legislation to do with the inspections. My next question would be: Can the minister meet the time frame of no longer than six months for specific guidelines’?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would accept the premise that the six-month period, let’s say roughly the end of June or July, seems appropriate at this time. I must say that as we are still determining with the two full-time people we have seconded to do this job what the nature of their task is and how much they are going to be able to rely upon others -- I think it is a reasonable request and I will genuinely try to meet it.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to continue this line of questioning to the minister with respect to child care centres. In April 1987, the minister is quoted in an interview with the Globe and Mail. At that time the select committee on health, when it was studying child care had access to information on the inadequacy of inspections and on problems of care, particularly in commercial centres.

The minister was quoted in the Globe and Mail at that time as saying: “Sometimes we have to pull back our spurs a little bit so that we won’t be closing places down.” He was referring to the inspection process and how it was not working. Can the minister tell us if that is still the position of the ministry with respect to inspections?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: With respect to any day care centre where there is an obvious danger to the health of children and the safety of children, we certainly would not hesitate to close it down as quickly as we possibly could. As a matter of fact, in the past year approximately 12 centres have closed down, most of them of their own decision because we had indicated to them, “Either you do it or we’ll do it.” Nevertheless, there were approximately 12.

However, if I can go back to the particular comment the member referred to, I said at that time and I would have to repeat that the job of our inspectors is not to find places they want to close down but rather to find places where the act is not being enforced the way it ought to be and to assist the operator and the staff of those centres to change their procedures so they can come into compliance, and we are prepared to work with them as much as we possibly can to get them into compliance.

I do not need to tell the honourable member that the desperate need for more spaces in the province leads us to try to retain the places we have, provided we are assured that the safety and health of children is not seriously at risk. That is still the direction of my ministry, but we have not hesitated to close down a centre or to compel it to close down on its own where there are genuine health and safety risks.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s own inspectors have found that about one in seven of the homes they inspected are unclean or potentially unsafe and that over one in five fail to keep basic records. This is a ramshackle system where commercial operators, by and large, are operating in far greater violation of the regulations than nonprofit operations. The minister has known that ever since he became the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Can the minister tell us why he has failed up until now to provide a system which does not put inspectors in this impossible situation of saying, “If I enforce the law I’m in fact going to be depriving dozens of kids and their families of appropriate and necessary child care, child care they need”? Does he not see the need for a comprehensive system which will stop putting inspectors into this impossible situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to the honourable member, we can clearly say that that is what we have been doing for the last, roughly three and a half years. We recognize that the only way we are going to keep our inspectors out of that dilemma, as he puts it and accurately puts it, is to have as many more spaces as possible available to families and available to parents. By doubling our subsidized spaces, by adding 25,000 licensed spaces, by including the direct grants for roughly $60 million in 1988 alone, by pretty close to quadrupling the total budget for it, we are moving in that direction.

It is only at a point in time where we have enough alternative choices for parents in place that we can be stricter than we are at the present time. I am not suggesting that we would not close down a place where there is a serious safety or health violation. We will and we have and we do; but we will try to keep as many spaces available for parents as long as we can, and at the very same time put more and more spaces in place. The honourable member knows, with reference to nonprofit and commercial, that all of the new spaces I have been talking about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Parry Sound.

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

Mr. Eves: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), her parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and just about anybody else in cabinet who would know anything about health care over there, I will ask a question of the government House leader. I am sure that if he is not up to date on this important issue, he will refer it to the cabinet minister who is running the health care system in Ontario today.

Could the minister give us an explanation of how it was that a 10-year-old student at Grandview Public School in the Peterborough area died of meningitis several days after four of her classmates had contracted the disease and how it was that it took about a week for the district health unit to recognize this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is my understanding that both the Ministry of Health and the relevant health authorities in the Peterborough-Lindsay area did act both prudently and correctly. This particular meningitis is one that requires an antidote that has to be administered under very particular circumstances. It is my understanding, on the basis of the information that I have, that that antidote was administered quite properly.

It is, of course, very tragic that the young person died; but again, it is my information that the relevant health authorities acted prudently and took the necessary action by administering the antidote as it is medically required to be so administered.

Mr. Eves: I am sure that the Kaufholds would beg to disagree with the government House leader that appropriate action was taken and that it was taken quickly and properly. Perhaps the minister could give an explanation to the House as to why it took a week for the district health unit to respond to this situation.

There were seven cases reported within a week from one Friday, January 27, I believe, until the following Friday. It was only on the second Friday that Dr. Mikel acknowledged that he had an outbreak of meningitis. In the meantime, there were some seven cases reported. What steps is this government taking to ensure that this does not happen again, and will the minister give us an explanation in the House as to how this was allowed to occur?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me say to my honourable friend, let me repeat that I share the concern that he has. I would say to the family that the tragedy is indeed that: it is a tragedy. But it is my information that the meningitis in question is treated with an antidote, but it must be established that there is an interrelationship between the various individuals. When that is done, the antidote is administered.

I repeat that it is my information that the medical authorities did act appropriately in this circumstance. I repeat that it is none the less tragic that an individual died, but I understand that for the meningitis involved, the proper antidote was administered in a prudent way.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In my riding, there are a number of farmers who are part of the crop insurance program and they support it fully. I have other farmers who are not. Notwithstanding repeated requests to discuss it further, they have still remained out of the program.

I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has had a number of recommendations where it was proposed that improvements could be made and we could attract more farmers into the program, and I understand that the minister is contemplating some of those changes to make it more attractive to these farmers who are still not in the program. I wonder if the minister could share with us today what some of the changes are that might be contemplated and how we can make it more attractive to bring into the program the farmers who are not there now.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member for Simcoe Centre is no doubt aware that a task force was commissioned a couple of years ago to review the crop insurance program and to make recommendations for changes that would encourage more producers to participate in the program.

The task force made, I believe, 22 recommendations and most of the recommendations which fall within provincial jurisdiction were incorporated into our crop insurance program. One of the major recommendations made was that coverage over 80 per cent be considered. I understand that the federal government, being that the act is a federal act, now has the Crop Insurance Act under review and I am sure one of the things that it is reviewing is the coverage of 80 per cent. If they do choose to amend the act, then they will have to go into the federal House in order to get coverage over the 80 per cent.

One of the things we are doing here at the provincial level is including a floating price option for the major grain crops to ensure that the price at which the crop is insured is close to the market price at harvest time. The commission is also introducing crop insurance -- and this will be for the first time -- for greenhouse production of tomatoes and cucumbers. Coverage for these products is based on 80 per cent of the greenhouse operator’s own average farm yield. These are in addition to many of the other recommendations we have already incorporated into the crop insurance program

Mr. Owen: We are heading into a new crop year and one of the biggest requests I have had from the farmers in my area is to allow for increased premium assistance. Has the federal government given any indication to our province as to whether or not something will be in place to help the farmers for the crop year they are heading into this year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I had occasion to meet with Donald Mazankowski, the federal minister, two weeks ago. We had a two-hour session and raised a number of issues. We found common ground on a lot of the issues. I really look forward to working with Mr. Mazankowski; I think he is sincere about doing a job for agriculture and food.

He indicated that the Crop Insurance Act is under review, and I received more or less a favourable response from him that he was prepared to amend the Crop Insurance Act to allow coverage over the 80 per cent, which is the thing that the farmers are most concerned about.

I am sure we will also see a change in the premium structure. I have always indicated that I am prepared to pick up a portion of the producers’ premium. I was hoping that the federal government would leave its contribution at the 50 per cent level, but I do not know what Mr. Mazankowski will come up with. Whatever he does, I am sure that it will favour the producers.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I ask this question because of my concern but also, as the minister will be aware, because there is a large number of people from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union here today. They would like to hear the minister’s justification for rejecting joint trusteeship of their pension plan, as well as how the minister can continue to justify the specific inability, under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, for them to be able to negotiate their pension benefits. Why does the government of Ontario continue to take this paternalistic view towards its employees?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In Ontario, we have programs in place which are designed to ensure that the employees are protected in the workplace and which do all kinds of things that are new and novel, and we wish to become an even more model employer. That was one of the reasons -- there were several -- for us sitting down with OPSEU to discuss a whole new way of dealing with the pension issue.

I can tell the honourable member that I was disappointed when I found the union taking leave from the discussions surrounding pensions which we had with it, as I had indicated my willingness to retain a very open mind about the manner in which we dealt with pensions in Ontario. In fact, I am still willing to sit at the table and discuss these things and will look forward to the days when we talk again about pension issues, of whichever nature the union would like us to speak to.

Mr. Pouliot: You won’t even give them a list of investments.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The government rejects the ability for the members of the pension plan to be able to have any decision-making influence on where their pension funds are being invested and how that has happened over the years. As well, the government refuses to allow them to negotiate their pension plan benefits when their contract is being negotiated. That is the question. How does the minister justify that attitude toward his own employees?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I had tried to tell the honourable gentleman, in my role as Chairman of Management Board and in charge of the human resources secretariat, we deal with issues of pensions with respect to the Ontario public service. I have a very open mind with respect to how we deal with pensions in this day and age. I was disappointed, as I said before, that the union chose to leave the table. I welcome the discussions to continue.

Any way we can restructure pensions in a reasonable and liberal fashion is, in my view, an assistance. From my point of view, the people of the province would be well served if we were able to come to some agreeable resolution of our discussions, and I am quite open to that.

Mr. B. Rae: It’s the liberalism we’re worried about, Murray.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell that the honourable members across the way do not like the idea that we have new ways of dealing with the issues of pension and other things that we want to discuss with our employees.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am quite prepared to do that. I will continue to work to make the workplace in the Ontario public service sector a very good one to participate in and I will continue to deal with the issue of pensions in a very progressive fashion. I look forward to continuing discussions with the public service.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I never thought I would have to rely on the current minister to make Conservatives look good in the matter of negotiations with our employees.

Mr. Speaker: The question is for which minister?

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding local associations for the mentally retarded in Ontario. Concerns about staff shortages focus on the lack of ministry planning with respect to deinstitutionalization policy and the ministry’s failure to promote the profession. The real problem now centres on wages, resulting from ministry transfer payments.

The minister knows about these concerns. We discussed them briefly in the few moments available to me in estimates last week. He also knows that only his ministry can address them. What is he doing now to address them and what steps is he taking to ensure continued delivery of this vital service in the community by the associations of the mentally retarded?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We have indicated in our document Challenges and Opportunities that we accept the responsibility for providing community support services for the families of the developmentally handicapped who already live in the community. As a matter of fact, we have made a commitment over a seven-year period, from the release of that document, to provide services to 8,000 more families than we are now providing for, which I believe is about 25,000.

We also indicated that we would continue to support families to move their, in most cases adult children, out of institutions and back to the community. We made a commitment for 1,000 from institutions and 1,000 from nursing homes. We know, as do the community agencies, that is only going to be successful if we have a community support system in place that everyone can work with. That means residential services, day services and training services. It also means staff who are trained to do the job and who are paid to do the job that is required of them.

That follows a question I answered earlier from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae). Part of the total community wage package is now being considered by the government.

Mr. Harris: The cold, hard facts are that a counsellor working for the ministry earns about $26,000 per year. A counsellor working and doing the same job for a local transfer agency that the minister is counting on to deliver his program makes about $18,000.

The ministry is forcing local agencies to compete, but they cannot do it if they are limited to a four per cent transfer payment increase. At the same time, the ministry is forcing local agencies to do more and more in terms of delivering services that it expects them to deliver.

The minister knows there is going to be a strike. He knows he is going to have to provide the resources to settle the strike, either with salary dollars or with advice on what it is that he expects them to provide that they should no longer provide, what services they are going to have to cut.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Harris: I would ask the minister to save the agencies, their clients and their families a lot of grief by acting now instead of when the strike takes place. What is he doing now to resolve this problem instead of waiting until that time?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the things we are doing, obviously, as I indicated, is reviewing our whole community salary package, and the extent to which we can improve it will be the extent to which we will certainly share it with the local communities.

The second thing we are doing is working with not only the agency in North Bay but many other communities across the province that are facing similar concerns and making sure that the service to the clients will continue if there is a work stoppage and looking at the range of programs which those agencies are providing and jointly asking ourselves whether or not we want to rearrange the order of priority of those particular programs.

As the member obviously knows, the desire of every local agency is to provide as much support and as many services as it possibly can. The budget that is available to it does not always allow it to do everything that it wants to do. Consequently, they have to review that, we have to review that; and we are doing it jointly. That is the process that is going on right now.

ONTARIO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION PROGRAM

Mr. Black: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I understand that the Ontario travel association program, which provides funding for tourist promotion across the province, is currently under review. Can the minister identify for us the status of that review and the time lines under which it is being conducted?

Hon Mr. O’Neil: I would like to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for his question, especially since he represents an area that is so important to tourism in Ontario. I can tell him that there is a review going on of the Ontario travel association program. That review started in the fall of 1988 and we are hoping that we will have the recommendations published some time before this summer.

Mr. Black: The minister is aware of the fact that my riding is in the Georgian Lakelands tourism area and that that tourism area represents three quite diverse sections of the province in terms of tourism development. He is also aware of the fact that there have been some concerns coming from those three diverse sections about whether one umbrella organization can effectively represent their views and their needs. Will there be an opportunity for those three areas to make their views known under this review?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can assure the member that there will be consideration made so that all of those three areas will be heard. In each case, the review that is taking place includes, actually, three phases. There will be questionnaires, there will be telephone interviews and there will be meetings with all of the focus groups. In each of these consultations, we will be listening to representatives from the tourism industry, from municipalities, from the local tourist associations and also from the 12 existing OTAP organizations that are spread around the province.

I can assure the member that my staff and myself are prepared to listen to all of the different groups -- any that he would recommend -- and we will, hopefully, meet with all of the people concerned with tourism in that area and throughout the rest of the province.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The closing of the Lundy Steel plant in Dunnville, with a loss of 170 jobs, was announced with a half hour’s notice to the workers involved and no look at the books. Does the minister consider this appropriate and good corporate citizenship?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure the member will know that Ivaco, the company that is the parent, has been rationalizing its industries and that this is not the only plant. We deplore any time any workers are put out of work. I should tell the member that we have very little control other than to make sure that the provisions under the labour legislation are followed. We will certainly see, through the Ministry of Labour, that those are followed.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister has given part of the supplementary. This is not the first time that Ivaco has closed down a plant. As a matter of fact, it is at least the third plant I know of that they have closed in the name of rationalization. There was the Canron subsidiary in London, the Automotive Hardware/Federal Bolt and Nut operation in Toronto and now Lundy Steel. In each case, there were no discussions with the workers or the unions before the announcement was made, no explanation given for the decision and no hope given that anything might be reversed.

Why is it that this government seems to be the easiest patsy in the western world when it comes to companies closing down plants where workers are adversely affected? Why is it this government has not lived up to its promise -- which would deal exactly with this -- for there to be some justification, some earlier notice and plant closure procedures in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that there is nothing that we can do to compel a company to stay open if it decides it is going to close down. What we can do is make sure that the workers are adequately treated. That is something we have provisions for in the labour code and we will be pursuing that.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I will direct a question to the Solicitor General that has to do with individuals out in the communities on loosened Lieutenant Governor’s warrants.

The Solicitor General will know that her colleagues on the standing committee on public accounts last week rejected a call from our party to have an efficiency audit done of the risk management system in place at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital after an incident there a couple of weeks ago.

Following that rejection, on Thursday evening we had an escape from ward K, the forensic unit of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, of an individual who was responsible for some very serious violent crimes in the Toronto area a few years ago. That was his third elopement, as the hospital likes to describe it, in a month and a half.

As the minister responsible for policing, does she have any concerns that she may want to inform the House of with respect to the problems these individuals are creating for police forces right across this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I recognize that the member has much concern for the people in his community because of these elopements from the institution, but I think he should be aware that they represent a very small minority of the people involved and that indeed many controls are being put in place.

As the Minister of Health has assured him in the past, they are looking very closely at this now to make sure that in considering the treatment and freedom given to anyone on a warrant, they will first take into consideration the safety of the citizenship generally. On the other hand, when people act outside what is permitted to them, that creates a different circumstance.

Mr. Runciman: I do not think the minister is keeping on top of what exactly is happening in that system. In the Brockville incident, the staff at the hospital were notified that this individual had been drinking three days prior to the incident occurring. They were very much aware that he was extremely dangerous when drinking. When he disappeared in the community, the police were not notified until an hour and a half after his arrest.

I think the minister has to appreciate the concerns being expressed by the policing community, let alone the public at large, with respect to these individuals being out in the community with their activities not being monitored adequately at all.

Talking about the number of incidents, I suggested on Thursday that perhaps the only way we are going to jar the Minister of Health and this government into action is if we end up with a murder on our hands. I hope that is not the approach the minister will support, and I hope she will urge her colleague the Minister of Health and the other members of the public accounts committee to support a public inquiry at best, and if we cannot get that at least an efficiency audit of the risk management system in the psychiatric hospitals across this province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, the Minister of Health has been looking very closely at this and has put into place instructions that a very careful look be taken at public safety, which is the first consideration in allowing these people out or in giving them any freedom whatsoever.

As the member knows, as a person is recovering and is making progress, it is logical that some degree of freedom would be allowed as he or she recovers. Many people do recover and indeed are subsequently returned to society. However, every care will be taken to make sure that only appropriate people are so released and that in looking at these cases the prime consideration will be for the security of the outside society to which they are being returned.

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Kanter: I have a petition signed by approximately 120 residents at 103 Avenue Rd. Just before I read the petition I want to indicate to all members it is totally unsolicited. The petition reads:

“We, the tenants of 103 Avenue Rd., strongly support the current rent regulation in Ontario. The increasing pressure from landlords and the media to make rent review obsolete is unacceptable. We want government action to prevent unlimited rent increases and the resulting economic hardships of deregulation.”

Mr. Speaker, I have signed my name to the petition and would now present it to you.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Fleet: I have a petition from 67 members of Windermere United Church. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We wish to express our objection to any expansion of Sunday shopping within our community and our province. We urge our elected representatives to continue present restrictions on Sunday store hours as a realistic means of promoting community wellbeing and family togetherness through the encouragement of a common day for rest and refreshment.

“We urge the provincial government to retain its responsibility under the Retail Business Holidays Act and not pass this on to the municipalities.”

I have signed this, in accordance with the rules of the Legislature, as the member for High Park-Swansea.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 16 residents of Wiarton and Owen Sound. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill prohibiting the use of animals in cosmetic and product testing.”

As the members know, this brings to more than 30,000 the number of names submitted on such petitions.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Elliot from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $26,077,000; industrial relations program, $12,144,200; labour relations board program, $7,607,300; occupational health and safety program, $53,092,300; employment standards program, $9,526,000; workers’ compensation advisory program, $7,381,000; Pay Equity Commission program, $4,226,500.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Neumann from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $40,622,000; adults’ and children’s services program, $4,223,220,200.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 214,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is to make void any provision in a tenancy agreement prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a rented residential premise. An exception is provided in the case of a rental accommodation of a condominium unit, if the declaration for that condominium corporation prohibits owners from keeping pets.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Allen moved that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside Monday, February 6, 1989, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the underfunding and lack of planning of programs and facilities for young offenders in Ontario and the resulting lack of public confidence in the current systems of care in control of these young offenders.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West has moved that the business be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. For the information of the members of the House, this notice was received within the proper time and therefore seems to be in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as well as representatives of the other parties for up to five minutes.

Mr. Allen: The circumstances of the death of Krista Sepp at the Kinark Child and Family Services home in Midland are an issue that I think has shaken many people in this province. It is quite evident to those of us who have our ear tuned to the media, those who are reading the press, those who are watching the televisions sets, that the media and, I think one would have to say, the public at large are desperately concerned about what is happening with respect to group homes, residences of open custody, treatment of young offenders and those with whom they are housed in those institutions.

We have been trying on this side of the House for some time to convey to the minister our urgent sense of the inadequacy of the funding of a whole range of transfer agencies that get money from the ministry. This is just the latest in a series of examples.

I suggest there has been an intersection of two things that makes this a crisis. One is the level and rate of violence, which appears to be rising in our society. Certainly the unionized workers of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees who work in these agencies have been pressing the ministry for some time with the fact that they are confronted with a rather new clientele that is much more difficult for them to handle, that the guidelines and understandings that have developed around those institutions are inadequate and yet they have received no response from the ministry with respect to their concerns.

Second, the ministry’s transfer moneys do not provide these institutions and agencies with sufficient resources to carry out their job adequately. In group homes, 50 per cent of the staff are on probation. Recruitment is difficult, pay is poor and staff turnover is high. As a result, these agencies are tempted to reduce their staff, cut back at the slightest provocation and run on minimal resources.

That is the background explanation as to why, when occasionally they do put an additional person on when threats are received, as in the case of the Kinark home, they very quickly go off that additional staff allocation and one is left again, on low times and at night, with simply one person in place.

It is equally an emergency when, given these circumstances, it is possible for group home managers to place a young person who is barely into the profession and who is barely trained in the profession in solitary control of any group home that houses emotionally disturbed children or young offenders. The consequences are obviously blazoned before us, the result of that absence of policy, of precautionary guidelines in that circumstance.

There are many people who believe that even under such guidelines as exist, where managers are prepared to place new, young and untrained or very recently trained staff in those circumstances in such places of jeopardy, perhaps they should be subject to charges of criminal negligence because the results are obviously very criminal in their consequences.

The whole question of the health and safety of workers in these locations, combined with the necessity of having intelligent, rational, well-supported care for young offenders and those in their teens who are emotionally disturbed in these home situations, has obviously become a matter of very critical and emergency concern for our province.

We remember, for example, when the police not many years ago had to fight very hard to get pairing on their beats in order to protect themselves. It would appear that in group homes it is also necessary never to have anything less than pairing.

There is a whole series of questions we wish the minister to answer this afternoon. He may not be able to answer all of them, but we feel the public is entitled to a full and clear debate in the light of these circumstances at Kinark Child and Family Services and in the light of other recent events that have a tragic similarity to those events so recently past in our own province.

I urge the members of this House and the other parties to accede to an emergency debate on this question forthwith.

Mrs. Cunningham: It gives me some amount of pleasure to speak to this motion this afternoon because we too in the Progressive Conservative Party feel this is a matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: We are not speaking to the motion; we are speaking about whether we should speak to the motion eventually.

Mrs. Cunningham: We will do it both ways, then.

I will speak to the fact that we need a public debate on the motion, for these reasons: Everyone agrees there ought to be changes to the Young Offenders Act. We hear it in this House. We hear it from the public. We hear it in the workplace. Those of us who work with young people know it. Everyone also agrees that it was appropriate for the minister concerned to write to the federal minister asking for these changes. We all agree with that particular action and we support it.

The real problem is the administration of the Young Offenders Act. I think the public has the right to hear the debate and the concerns of those of us who represent them, because of the things that are not happening with the provincial responsibility; that is, in the administration of this act.

The tragedies we watched this weekend have a lot to do with the way the province administers its part of and responsibility to the Young Offenders Act. The government must order a public judicial inquiry into the administration of the Young Offenders Act to ensure that those within the system, and the general public as well as the young offenders themselves, are being effectively served. That is why I think we should begin the debate on this motion this afternoon.

We must improve the way we conduct business here in Ontario when it comes to our young people. We have stated that we do not want our young people always to be in secure facilities. In fact, we want them to be in community-based environments that are secure. Over the weekend we were reminded that at least in two instances, this was not to be.

We are thinking that a lot of the problems have to do with the policies and procedures that are lacking or are not being enforced or are not being funded to the extent they must be so that our young people and the public can be safe.

We know that we are able to make, and we know it is important to the public that we make this a number one priority in this province. Of course, we support the government in its position of trying to rehabilitate young offenders in settings that are important to them and to their families. At the same time, we know it is very important to the public that they be cared for -- the young offenders, that is -- in a meaningful way, not only so that they can be rehabilitated and cared for appropriately but also so that the public can be safe.

It is with a great deal of difficulty that some of us have come to this debate this afternoon, in light of the tragic death of some six people this weekend, five young offenders and a halfway house worker. It reaches really to the bottom of all our hearts, as we know the kind of commitment people in our facilities have in order to help the young people who are there, expecting and deserving our assistance.

At the same time, there is some professional risk and some personal risk. Some of the points that can be made by the speakers this afternoon and some of the suggestions that we can give to the government have regard to a lack of facilities, underfunding, and more important, a need for a public inquiry. Our party will definitely be speaking to this public inquiry, and we are now talking about a judicial inquiry.

We hope there will be a reasonable time frame so that we can come back to this House with some suggestions for improvement that will be acted upon immediately, because this is a real concern to the public. I think some things happened this weekend to families across Ontario, not only those that lost their loved ones but others as well, that we could have avoided.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say that I have listened with care to my friends the member for Hamilton West and the member for London North. I think they make a very good point inasmuch as they request an opportunity in this Legislature to debate what is clearly a matter of concern, not just to the 130 members of this assembly but to all the people of Ontario.

I know how I reacted personally on the weekend, hearing of the stories that have produced the climate of concern my friends the member for London North and the member for Hamilton West have already spoken to. I have to say, on behalf of the government, that we welcome this opportunity to debate something about which we are going to have to reflect very seriously, both as a government and as a Legislature.

As the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) indicated this afternoon, as a result of what has transpired over the last little while in the community, there is certainly going to be a concern about our ability to do the sorts of things that I think we on all three sides of the political table at Queen’s Park have indicated we want to do, which is to have good, community-based programs for young offenders and for others in the community.

I say to my friend the member for London North that she quite properly indicates some of the areas about which there has been an identified concern. The member would have heard earlier this afternoon the Minister of Community and Social Services indicate the initiatives we have taken in so far as funding supports and staffing guidelines are concerned.

I might add, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), that the government of Ontario, this government, has indicated -- I think, to be fair, the predecessor government indicated right at the outset -- a concern that was evident within the ranks of the Ontario public service about what the Young Offenders Act might mean in so far as certain administrative and other matters were likely to be. Some of those concerns have unfortunately been borne out.

I believe today the Attorney General has once again written, to the newly appointed Minister of Justice for Canada, indicating the desire of the government of Ontario for some change to the federal Young Offenders Act, because it is increasingly clear that change is called for if we are going to be more effectively able to cope with a number of the challenges that have been presented to providers and those enforcement agencies mandated with the responsibility of carrying out that Young Offenders Act at the provincial level.

I want to say without any further ado that the government welcomes the opportunity to set aside the ordinary business of this Legislature this afternoon to deal with a matter of concern to all members, and certainly to the government. I say, as one member of the government, that I am very interested in hearing from my colleagues in the assembly what their advice will be as we deal, not just with the issues before us but with those aspects of public confidence to which my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services referred in the various exchanges earlier today in question period.

I want to indicate as well the willingness of the government to listen to submissions from our friends opposite to make sure that we can move forward in a way to reinforce the very good things we all want done in the community. We want to avoid the kind of scare tactics that can sometimes arise in the context of these debates. Any of the members who have ever been associated with the group home debate in a given community -- I have just gone through one in my own community and I well appreciate, as I think all members do, that this is the kind of issue where there is an opportunity to raise fears.

It seems to me we have a responsibility, all of us in government, in the Legislature and those with a leadership role, to make sure that we recognize the problems as they present themselves and that in a serious and constructive way we find remedies to address the problems that exist, and that we do not in any way inflame public opinion. I must say in light of what has happened over the course of the last few days that I think the public will be reassured to know the members of the Legislature are working in a very constructive way to find a resolution to the current difficulty.

My colleagues and I, and most especially the Minister of Community and Social Services, welcome this debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: We have now dealt with Mr. Allen’s motion under standing order 37(a), (

b) and (c). We now come to standing order 37(d), where I can only put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Speaker: I will remind members they have the opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes and any member may speak. If we run out of speakers or debaters before six of the clock, the debate will be completed. Otherwise, it will continue until the clock strikes 6 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One rises to participate in this debate with a mixture of emotions: profound sadness, a knot in the stomach and a lot of anger that this kind of an incident or these incidents could occur in our province. As somebody who has been responsible for social services critiques for the last 10 years, I would like to try to put this in some kind of context because these things do not happen out of the blue.

I also appeal to people to deal with this rationally and not to deal with this in terms of reactions against straw men -- I speak pointedly here about the Young Offenders Act -- but to look specifically at why certain things have taken place, deal with those precise problems and not look at turning back the clock too many years to the kind of juvenile delinquent corrections service we used to have prior to the inception of the Young Offenders Act.

At any time young lives are snuffed out -- I think of those kids killed on Highway 401, many of whom were not older than the pages we have in room, who had run afoul of the law and were in difficulty in their lives at a very young age but will have no further problems because of that accident, and I think of a young woman only weeks out of a community college course, whose family had already gone through a tragic incident with an older brother being killed, who was then killed in the night doing her duty in one the group homes of this province, in an organization, Kinark Child and Family Services, that has been working now in this province under that name and others for a long, long time, sometimes dealing with people no one else wished to deal with.

It is with regret and a measured anger that I wish to express today that these things could have taken place in 1989.

We had a chance to review the Young Offenders Act in this parliament a number of years ago. As a province, I think we have implemented it more badly than any other jurisdiction in the country. I do not place the blame for that upon this government; I place it on the past Conservative government for the way it failed to leap at the opportunity to meet the spirit that law, to have one ministry deal with it instead of two, as we have decided to do, with two sets of rules and standards, and that we did not move on it more firmly.

Subsequent to that federal law being passed, we passed a law in this House, the Child and Family Services Act, after much deliberation. If I were looking at a law that I now wanted to deal with, it would not be to attack the federal Young Offenders Act. There are one or two small things I would like to see changed in that act, but that is not the agenda of the people who want that act changed. They want to take us back to the old detention centres we used to have before that act. I hope we do not have that holus-bolus reopening of that piece of legislation, but we should look at our own legislation and what we failed to do with the Child and Family Services Act.

We have not made any substantial changes in our notions of guidelines and standards for homes that are operated by private for-profit organizations, as well as by a few not-for-profit organizations. We still have staffing standards that are so wide open you can drive a truck through them, and which I think with their lack of precision can be looked at in terms of the death of Krista Sepp specifically. We have no real guarantees for the protection of staff or even the self-protection of the young offenders with the present guidelines that are established.

Our inspection system in terms of seeing how the staffing is working out is, in my view, primarily a monetary inspection to try to make sure the line-by-line accountability for the budget, which this ministry demands, is met, but not that standards of care are established and followed.

I would like to know how it is that with a person who has been incarcerated in a secure detention centre for many months before this move to Kinark, when a warning came that there was going to be some sort of problem from outside -- which we have heard very cryptically about today -- extra staffing was put on for merely a couple of weeks, from what we can gather at this stage, but nothing else was there to be able to fall back on to make decisions that might have protected this young worker’s life.

How is it that somebody coming straight out of community college, with two weeks on the job, is in that home a few weeks after there has been a warning there might be some difficulty, alone at night in that kind of circumstance? How on earth could that take place under provincial legislation? It is because we do not have guidelines to speak of that are worth a cent, that are worth anything?

This is not a new issue. I want members to know I personally raised this issue as early as 1980. People raised it well before I raised this matter. Even members of the Liberal Party raised this matter when we were dealing with the Child and Family Services Act.

I think it is without doubt time to do what my leader was suggesting in his questions, and that is to have a public inquiry about just how all of this works. When we had the select committee on health, before this last election, studying privatization and commercialization, it was felt by many Liberals -- I regret to say, because this seemed to be a change of policy from what I had noted in the years before they became government -- that it did not matter whether you gave your money out to a private system or whether you maintained it in the public system in terms of the delivery of these kinds of services.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a really profound reason why it should be nonprofit and why it should be government-controlled: If you do not have that kind of direct accountability by the government itself, then you do not impose the kinds of guidelines and standards that keep us on our toes and that keep the provision of services appropriate to the needs of the young clients.

I know the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) has stood in this House recently and talked about what a lot of guards and workers in the system of corrections are saying today, and that is that the clientele is changing. I know that the minister will agree, in the Ministry of Community and Social Services’ responsibility for the under-16s, that the kind of clientele is changing as well with the new

definitions of secure custody down to open custody and with the kinds of decisions that judges are making in terms of where people should be placed when they are released to one kind of option or another.

I am not sure that we have looked at the standards that are appropriate to each kind of institution, to make sure that the kids are protected, that the society is protected and that the workers are protected. I really think it is time that we had a major open review of that process, and in that context that we look again at whether we want this in the private system or whether we want these publicly run and publicly accountable.

The turnover of staff is enormous. The pay for staff is terrible. We know that. The training for staff, because of that turnover, is inadequate. In all these areas one has to say that these things will only lead to problems. This is the kind of matter where 10 minutes is not sufficient to address the enormity of it, either in terms of the personal tragedy which has taken place or in terms of the scope of where we should be going.

I would just plead to this House that it not turn all its attention on a federal Young Offenders Act and look for all the problems there, because it is my belief that the principles of that act are still sound. It is the implementation of it in this province which has been problematic, and that is where we should be focusing our attention and where this minister should be getting the kind of resources that he requires to run the kind of system that all of us would want if our 14-year-old child got into trouble or if our 21-year-old daughter was going to be working in that system and trying to provide the care that we would want for those children.

I therefore commend the member for bringing forward this motion this afternoon and ask all members to speak to it at length.

Mr. Brandt: I want to join with the opposition party in endorsing the concept of a public inquiry, as I indicated to the minister during question period, because I believe that there are some fundamental problems in connection with the facilities, the administration, and also, I have to say to my good friend the previous speaker, the whole issue of the Young Offenders Act as it relates to the terrible horrors that occurred this past weekend when a number of lives were lost in our province.

If I can just focus on the Young Offenders Act for a moment in connection with some of the concerns that our party has: From what I heard of the minister’s response today, essentially, I believe, we are in concert with him on some of the changes that he would like to see occur. I do not consider that to be a draconian response or a shift back to an earlier age when, in fact, we did not deal with young offenders in a more enlightened and responsible manner. But I do believe that there are some very critical and very serious errors and problems with respect to the present act that have to be addressed.

One of them comes to light in a very specific sense when you take a look at the case that occurred in the death of Krista Sepp in Midland over the past weekend, where the communications were so bad that not even the local police chief was aware that there were two young offenders in that group home. I believe the police chief had every right to know at least that there were individuals who had been charged with particular types of crimes who were being held there at that time.

When the police chief himself in that jurisdiction is not aware, I would suggest to members that the level of communications to the community and to those responsible for the administration of justice in our community is totally, completely and entirely inadequate. I think that kind of communication is reasonable, and there may be other authorities that should have that type of information as well. I would include in that perhaps the educational system and perhaps some social workers who may have to be made aware of it; but I am talking essentially of professionals who work in the field as opposed to the public at large.

I think there are also some very real concerns that relate to the question of sentencing under the Young Offenders Act and the limitation, as an example, of three years on a crime that is as heinous as the Scarborough incident, where three people lost their lives. The individual responsible for that has effectively lost one year off his life for every life that he took. I think that is just unacceptable to society as a whole.

I am not one who believes in capital punishment, I might add as an aside, but I do believe in appropriate levels of punishment and also some indication that the individuals in question are going to be safe when they are put back into society to live a normal, everyday life. The kind of aftercare for individuals like this concerns me. For these reasons, I believe that the Young Offenders Act has got to be looked at as part of any kind of inquiry that would look at the circumstances surrounding some of the incidents that have caused, I think, a real question of confidence in the minds of the public over this past weekend.

I would also like to make comment about some thrust towards having all of these facilities operated in a public way as opposed to any private facilities. Having sat on the other side of the floor from time to time -- and for all too short a time, some might say -- I do recognize that there are moments when the government has got to look at the best method of delivering -- notice I did not say the cheapest -- a particular service that makes sense perhaps to be done privately as opposed to publicly.

I would really question in this particular instance whether it was only the fact that this was a privately run group home that caused the problems. I would suggest that there were probably other issues, such as a recognized level of care that should have been provided and a recognized level of budgeting associated with that care that should have been much more in line.

If you only pay for one worker, whether that worker is public or private -- and making the presumption, if I might, that both kinds are adequately trained and with adequate levels of experience -- I would suggest that there may well be instances where a privately run group home may be as responsive to the needs of the community as a publicly run group home. I am not going to place myself in a position where I say that one is better than the other, because I believe that there is room and there may well be a need for both types of homes.

But I have the same questions, and this is why I think there is a question of confidence and why I think this particular motion is appropriate today in calling for this emergency debate, in that there are so many questions surrounding the Krista Sepp case that are very bothersome. Here we have a young lady, some 21 years of age, who has recently graduated from a community college, who has been on the job the sum total of about nine days.

There may well be some circumstances under which a more experienced male or female individual, with this kind of training but more experienced, could work alone, even though I have some concerns about people working alone in this environment. But I have to suggest that in this particular instance, with someone who has no more than about nine days of experience, one is really placing him or her in a position of jeopardy that causes me some concern. A public inquiry would come to grips with questions like the issue of whether these kinds of workers should be left in a situation where they are forced to work alone.

Interestingly enough, on the same weekend we had individuals who escaped from another institution where there were in fact two workers who were in place at that particular time. There is no guarantee that because you have two or more workers an incident will never occur, but I suggest there is a number of workers which may be safe in particular circumstances. A public inquiry, we hope, would look at that question.

Ontario’s chief coroner, who was involved in the review of the incident that happened in 1985, indicated that he was shocked to hear that this young lady was forced to work all by herself in this particular situation.

I think there are a number of questions that have to be addressed: the quality of care, the review of the Young Offenders Act and the amount of money that is being committed on the part of the government in connection with the servicing of this program.

In dealing with it on a day-to-day basis, as I do and as many members of this Legislature do, I sense a real feeling of frustration among police authorities, social service workers and people who are involved in the security of these individuals about the lack of aftercare, in some instances, that has to be provided.

There is a feeling that they are not able to come to grips with what the Young Offenders Act really implied when it was first put into place. Really what we are saying to a young person is: “Because of your youth, we’re not going to put you into an environment where you’re exposed to hardened criminals. We are going to try to rehabilitate you.”

If rehabilitation is the foundation upon which this entire act and the facilities we have put in place, limited though they might be, are founded, if that is what this whole exercise is all about, then I think we have to look very carefully at whether or not we are meeting with a degree of success with respect to the issue of rehabilitation.

I would suggest to the minister that people in our community and society at large are asking some very direct questions. Is the act working? Are the facilities adequate? Are circumstances like those we experienced this past weekend preventable? If so, I think the people of Ontario are prepared, if necessary, to spend some more money on issues like this, on questions of this type, in order to make sure that we do have an adequate response to dealing with our young people in particular, on issues at this level of importance.

I again ask the minister to seriously consider a public inquiry. I think that would be more balanced and fair than an in-ministry review. I ask him to keep an open mind on that particular question.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me begin by thanking my colleagues on all sides of the House for the tenor in which this debate is taking place and in which the previous question period took place. The opportunity to blow it out of proportion is always there, and I am genuinely pleased that no one attempted to do that and no one is going to do that today.

I was in my home this past weekend, and of the three of my children who are still living at home with us, one is a 22-year-old daughter and the other is a 15-year-old son. I could not help but realize that either that 15-year-old son or that 22-year-old daughter could have been one of the two people who were killed these past three days. I guess that is what really drives it home. It could be any one of us at any time. That is what makes it so personal. I do not get the sense from anyone who has spoken so far, either during question period or now, that this is something out there that happens to other people. It could happen to any one of us.

I do not want to go into a lot of detail about the particular issues. Quite frankly, I think I have shared with the members all the hard data that I have and I will certainly share with them in the days ahead any more that I get.

But I very much want to pick up on a theme that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) raised and that was, I sense, supported by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), and that is that despite the tragedy we have experienced, going back to where we were before is not the answer.

I can remember very vividly when I was a director of education for a school board meeting with Judge Ross Fair, who was our family court judge at that time, and sharing with him the absolutely horrible experience we were having with our young students coming back from training schools after having been sent there for whatever period of time. They came back very disillusioned. In terms of their attitudes, they came back worse than when they left.

Our judgement was that there were no corrections taking place, there was no rehabilitation taking place, and we asked: “Judge Fair, isn’t there another way? There’s got to be a better way.” He expressed the same thing to me. He said: “I agree with you, John, but I have no alternatives. The present federal legislation and provincial legislation do not give me any other alternative. What am I supposed to do with these kids?”

That is why I so welcomed the Young Offenders Act as a move forward, and I want to say very clearly that while I believe that some changes need to be made, the act itself and the spirit behind that act are good. I do not want that to get lost.

I remember that under the old legislation, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, we treated children in a very paternalistic way. We did not recognize any of their rights. A judge simply made a disposition that this child was going to go to a training school and that was it. It was then entirely up to officials of my ministry to decide what training school, how long the children were going to stay there, what was going to happen to them and where they would go after that. They literally became wards of the crown until their 18th birthday. A 12-year-old could have found himself or herself in our custody for six years. I do not know how often that happened, but the potential was there.

What the Young Offenders Act clearly said was: “Listen, you can’t treat children with any less justice than you treat adults. There’s got to be a clearly defined sentence. There has to be a clearly defined place where that sentence is going to be carried out. You have to be sure that you do everything you can to rehabilitate young people, because they are going to go back to society.” It is not a case that we are going to be able to keep them there for the rest of their lives; they are going to go back. And how are they going to behave? What is their attitude towards themselves and other people going to be? Surely that is what we have to accomplish.

That was truly the remarkable thing about the act, and there was a tremendous debate across this country, at the federal level and at the provincial level, about the need for change. The kinds of disagreement between the two levels of government, Ontario and Ottawa, at that time had more to do with the administration and the funding and things like that than the fact that changes needed to be made, and I hope that would not get lost.

The other clear thing that the Young Offenders Act points out is that, by opening up the process, there is the possibility of open custody that would take place in communities, not in institutions. We recognized that if were going to help these young people, if we were going to help their families, then it was going to take place in their communities; it was not going to take place somewhere far away where we simply sent them and forgot about them or tried to forget about them.

That is why it is so important that we recognize the continuing community aspect of young offenders’ rehabilitation, but that immediately imposes upon us the other side of the coin, which is the protection of the public.

I must candidly say I do not think we have given that side of it as much attention as we have given dealing with the young people themselves. That is what we have to look at in this review right now: the extent to which we are supportive of the twin pillars of this act. The public has the right to be protected and expects to be. We also have a responsibility to rehabilitate the young person. That is what the whole act rests on, and I fully accept that responsibility.

I want to share with my colleagues that as we have moved these young people into our communities, we have recognized in two specific parts of this province, in the northern part of Ontario and in the southeastern part of Ontario, the need to put community supports in place as well, and not just the facility. We have established five teams in the north and in southeastern Ontario two teams of community resources which work directly with our facilities, whether the ones we operate ourselves or the ones that are operated by community agencies.

We try to work with these young people before they go in, when we see problems coming up, we try to work with them while they are there and we try to work with them after they go back to the community. The whole sense is that while we may not be able to prevent young people from committing their first offence, which usually is minor -- that is the experience we have -- surely once we have an opportunity to work with them, we can help prevent them from committing the second and the third and the more serious one.

We have recognized that this community support system needs to be in place. As I say, thus far we have put it in place in the north and in southeastern Ontario.

With respect to the impact on the community of moving young people in there, we have realized that the ways in which we provide those services are not meeting everybody’s needs as adequately as they ought to.

Because of that, we have asked Colin Maloney, who is the executive director of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, to pull together a team of people from the total cross-section of this field to look at how we deal with children we take into care, whether it is a child who has been subject to child abuse, whether it is a child taken into care because his family simply cannot look after him any more for a whole range of reasons or whether it is a young offender. In all of those cases, we have taken that child into