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

April 25, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L064 - Thu 25 Apr 1996 / Jeu 25 Avr 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

WALK AGAINST MALE VIOLENCE

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

ONTARIO HOCKEY FEDERATION CHAMPIONSHIP

DOWNTOWN CHURCH COALITION

LIONS CLUB OF BRIGHTON

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS

ST JOSEPH SCHOOL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FINANCING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

EDUCATION FINANCING

PAROLE SYSTEM

EDUCATION FINANCING

SEWAGE AND STORM WATER TUNNEL

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

ABORTION

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TAX REDUCTION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

TAX REDUCTION

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

The House met at 1005.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

Mrs Caplan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario / Projet de loi 41, Loi visant à protéger les droits des personnes qui reçoivent des services de santé en Ontario.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise this morning during private members' hour to speak to a bill which is entitled

An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario. I'm very proud to present this bill to the Legislature. I don't have time during this debate to read it in its entirety, but I would like to set out some of the provisions which I hope will be supported by all members.

The bill sets out the rights of individuals who are receiving health care. It also speaks to their responsibilities, the responsibilities of both those who receive as well as those who provide health care services in the province.

The purposes of the act, primarily, are:

"1. To ensure that persons receiving health services in Ontario are aware of their right to receive appropriate and timely care.

"2. To ensure that persons receiving health services in Ontario are treated with dignity and respect by those who provide the services.

"3. To promote and improve communication between persons who receive health services in Ontario and the health professionals who provide the services...."

My view is that this legislation will promote minimizing the number of violations, as set out in

section 3 of this bill, as well as minimize the number of complaints relating to the violations that could potentially be made to the colleges and boards of directors of health professions under the regulated health professions legislation.

How do I think it will achieve that? It will improve and foster communications because for the first time in legislation this bill would promote and foster an alternative dispute mechanism called communication. It would say to the colleges, "As part of your investigations of a complaint, you have to see if the patient and the provider have sat down and talked to each other about the concerns they have." We know that very often that kind of communication can clear up all kinds of misunderstandings.

Never before have we seen the proposal in health legislation to foster that kind of communication, to foster alternative dispute resolution, and this bill is important because it sets that in motion.

It leaves investigation and discipline on all matters to the colleges, but it sets out very clearly for the colleges what, in the view of this Legislature, would be considered professional misconduct. I have always believed it is the responsibility of the province and of the Legislature to be clear, and this bill clarifies it.

For anyone who's interested, truly there is nothing new in this bill. Every provision of the bill appears somewhere in legislation applying to someone in the province. In the Nursing Homes Act there is a bill of rights. There are provisions in the Mental Health Act that very clearly give people their right to be informed on issues of incompetency and right to appeal. The new Health Care Consent Act has an information section.

What this bill does for the first time is bring all of those different rights together in one place. I believe this act will provide an important public education opportunity. It will also serve to not only inform individuals but raise the level of awareness among providers.

Is this new? Is this the first jurisdiction in North America to have a health care bill of rights? The answer is no. I wish I could say that it was landmark legislation, but in fact Massachusetts has a health care bill of rights.

What does a bill of rights do? We know from the days of John Diefenbaker and the Conservative government in Ottawa that a bill of rights brought forward is a statement of our values and our principles, and it enshrines those in law. It is something we have always seen as a positive step forward.

I do not believe that enforcement legislation is the way to go to try to solve all the problems of society. That's why the enforcement mechanism I have chosen in this legislation is left entirely with the colleges to determine what their protocols and procedures are. However, the legislation is very clear. It will assist in education and communication, and in my view it will not only benefit the individuals who are receiving health care, it will also benefit the providers -- the doctors, the nurses and those under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

I am proud of the fact that so many individuals and organizations have sent me letters of support for this bill.

The Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association says: "We also support your efforts surrounding a patients' bill of rights. These are very important efforts considering the present government's view on provincial advocacy legislation."

The Ontario Medical Association would like to see this bill go to committee so that it could be discussed and potentially amended, and I would support that process and support potential amendments. The Ontario Medical Association says, "There is much in this act to be recommended and, in at least one area, this act recognizes a principle long overdue in our system."

From the Alzheimer Association of Ontario: "In its intent to protect the dignity and rights of people receiving health services, it is very much in accord with the policy positions our board has taken."

From the Ontario Physiotherapy Association: "Please be assured of our support of your private member's bill (An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario). If there is any specific initiative the Ontario Physiotherapy Association can undertake to support the bill you need only advise us."

It is my hope that as people understand what is in this bill, they will recognize there is nothing to fear. It's my hope that it will be supported by the government. It has been supported by many who have taken the opportunity to read it, to understand it and to know what its intent is. What is surprising to me is that I have yet to find anyone whom I've discussed this bill with who is not in support of both the principle and intent and the mechanism I have chosen.

There is one other new feature to this piece of legislation that I think is important and should be noted: This will be the first time in legislation where the words "appropriate care" become enshrined. The Canada Health Act has five principles that are enshrined in that legislation: universality, comprehensiveness, public administration, portability and reasonable access. The Canada Health Act also speaks to medical necessity.

From the days of the development of the Canada Health Act, we all know that health services are now delivered in ways that were never contemplated when the doctor used to arrive at your door for a house call with his little black bag. Today there are many new technologies and many procedures that were not even dreamt of. Who would have ever imagined transplants? Who would have ever imagined the kind of extensive diagnostic therapies such as MRIs and the kinds of scanners that have become commonplace in our society?

One of the things we know as new technologies and new therapies have developed is the assurance that people actually get the care they really need.

The idea has gone beyond simply the notion of medical necessity, which everyone agrees should be the basis for the delivery of services under Canadian medicare, but there is also a growing consensus, and I would go so far as to say there is a consensus, that what people should receive from Canadian medicare is appropriate care, that what the obligation of Ontario health care should be to the people of the province is not only improvement in their health status but the assurance that they are receiving what they need. What they need is appropriate care.

I don't think there is anyone who would think you should have a right to anything which is inappropriate, so that deals with the issues of rights and responsibilities, of making sure we do everything we can to let people know that we want them to have what they really need, when they need it. This bill is companion to and would not in any way interfere with the Canada Health Act. I see it as an enhancement of that legislation because it further clarifies the rights and the responsibilities of patients and providers.

I'm hopeful that all members of this House and this Legislature will see the value and the merits of this bill. Frankly, it is something I have wanted to introduce for quite some time and actually began thinking about and talking about when I was Minister of Health in the province of Ontario. I believe we can do a lot as private members, and one of the things we can do is bring forward our ideas to this House in a non-partisan fashion, ask for the support of members of the Legislature, allow bills to go to committee so we can explore some of these ideas and see whether they have merit and should be enshrined in legislation.

The last thing I would like to say is that this bill will not cost the government anything. This is not a money bill. What it will do, I believe, is help them in their rightful role of increasing awareness of the public of what they can rightfully expect, what their rights are and what is an unreasonable expectation. It should also give comfort to the professions that I believe in self-governance, that I believe in good quality health care for the people of the province.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to be here this morning to take

part in this debate on the member for Oriole's private member's bill,

An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario.

Despite some of the things I might be provoked to say, I want to assure the member that I come here not to bury the bill but to praise it, that it is something the government should support. When I was reading the bill, I was trying to think if there were any openings here for the government to vote against it, and I couldn't think of any reason they'd vote against it. I see members on the government side all nodding their heads affirmatively that they certainly intend to support this bill. I don't know how they could possibly refuse to support the bill.

What is so terribly important about this bill is that it is necessary particularly because the government, through Bill 19, repealed the Advocacy Act. Now I have to tell you that I expected the government to repeal the Advocacy Act because the Advocacy Act did something for vulnerable people in our society. The Advocacy Act spoke on behalf of vulnerable people, so I expected the Tories to repeal it, just the way they've attacked welfare recipients, just the way they're going after seniors, just the way they're going after the disabled. I expected the Tories to repeal the Advocacy Act.

What I didn't expect was that the Liberals would support them in repealing the Advocacy Act. So of course Mrs Caplan, the member for Oriole, has no choice. She has to now protect her flank, if you will, by bringing forth a bill that says, "We're sorry we voted for the Tories in repealing the Advocacy Act." That's what this little piece of legislation is all about.

I come here to praise the bill, not to bury it, but you have to understand what the Liberals are all about. They voted for repeal of the Advocacy Act, which protected the vulnerable, so now of course they have to bring forth something that says: "We're sorry. It was a moment we regret and therefore we have to do something about protecting ourselves because we'll be criticized by vulnerable people."

During the committee hearings on Bill 19, which repealed the Advocacy Act, there were many witnesses, and our party, the New Democrats, tried to move some amendments. The government voted against those amendments; for example, the right to advisers when people were deemed to be incapable by the medical profession. So now there's no obligation by a health professional to tell a patient that they've been found incapable, what their rights are and that they can appeal that decision. Surely that's just a fundamental right for the most vulnerable people.

During those hearings, witness after witness came forward and explained to the committee why the provision of advice for people in this kind of situation was so essential, keeping in mind that they are so vulnerable.

The whole question of the government's position on advocacy, as I said, was understandable, but we proposed another amendment that would have established a non-profit corporation that would have ensured that people were told of the significance of the finding of incapacity and the right to appeal. The government voted that amendment down as well. At every turn, when we tried to move to ameliorate the very tough ramifications of the repeal of the Advocacy Act, the government wouldn't even compromise and say: "Well, all right, maybe we're going too far by a full repeal of the act. Perhaps we should accept some of these amendments." No, no, that was not in the cards.

The same with the right to find an interpreter. What if language is a problem when a doctor is deciding that someone is incompetent? We moved an amendment on that, because that could be a serious problem. I would think most members would understand that. The government voted against that amendment. There's no reference in Mrs Caplan's bill to interpreters, helping find interpreters when someone is deemed incapable. I regret that.

There's also a

section in this bill which I support, because I come here to praise this bill, the whole issue of reasonable and timely access to medical care. There is a danger out there, with all the government cuts in health care, despite their sanctimonious declarations before and during the election that there'd be no cuts to health care. Of course, that has proven to be the equivalent of the federal Liberals' promise to eliminate the GST, and you saw somebody thrown out of the House of Commons yesterday because they accused the Prime Minister of lying about the elimination of the GST.

I have no intention of getting thrown out of this assembly by accusing this government of lying when they promised that they wouldn't cut health care. I don't think I have to make that argument; others will make it for me. As a matter of fact, the numbers will make that argument for me and already are doing so, because of the cuts that are there now.

I don't think there's even much of a debate going on in the province now. If you ask people in the province of Ontario about timely and appropriate access to health care, they've expressed real concern, because they know there have been substantial cuts to the health care system, as announced by the minister; not announced by me or by the official opposition but announced by the Minister of Health himself and by the Minister of Finance.

There's no question in people's minds about there being cuts in health care in Ontario, absolutely no question about that at all. It's only that the government members are in what's called "a state of denial" that there's been any kind of debate on that. Ask anybody out there about health care in the province and people express grave concern and will make the point that of course the government's cutting health care. They've already announced it, making massive cuts in the hospital system and not replacing those cuts in the community-based and home care programs.

The fact is that it's appropriate to put into legislation that there be reasonable and timely access to health care because it is under threat. If government members are anxious about committing themselves to something they can't live with later, that's the part of this bill I'd be worried about if I were a government member, because of reasonable and timely access to health care. If the cuts continue, there won't be reasonable and timely access to health care in this province. That's the one aspect, if I were a Tory backbencher, I'd be a little nervous about.

I must reiterate I regret most profoundly that the Liberals saw fit to support the Tories in the repeal of the Advocacy Act, the bill that protected the most vulnerable people in our society, yet the government repealed that act and didn't put anything in its place. This is a faint-hearted attempt by the Liberals to say to people in the province, "We really do regret voting for repeal of the Advocacy Act, but here's something that will be a sop to you, and we hope that you will appreciate what we're doing."

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): A sop?

Mr Laughren: Yes, a sop by the Liberals.

However, I come here to praise this bill, not to bury it, so I must say I am pleased to stand in my place and support it. I can't imagine anyone in the assembly voting against this bill that's been brought forward by the member for Oriole. I congratulate her for bringing it forward and I certainly intend to support it.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the legislation introduced by my colleague the member for Oriole. Health care is a very important issue for this government. Mr Laughren would have you believe that we're cutting and that we're not involved in putting money back into health care and making health care in Ontario the important item that we all believe it is.

As you know, we have guaranteed that the budget in health care will be maintained at $17.4 billion over the course of our mandate. While the status quo is not acceptable, we will find savings and we will reinvest them in areas that Ontario has told us they want us to reinvest them in, not government priorities, but the people of Ontario's health priorities. We also want to ensure that consumers are getting the highest-quality health care at the best possible price.

While the government supports many of the principles expressed in Bill 41, we have some serious concerns with some aspects of this bill. We strongly support the underlying principles of the Canada Health Act and are dedicated to ensuring that each Ontario resident receives access to medically necessary services.

As well, we believe that Ontario citizens fund the health care system through their tax dollars, and because of the essential nature of health care services, consumers of the system deserve to understand fully the choices of services available to them and to take an active role in making decisions regarding their health care.

The Premier is on record as stating that every Ontario citizen has specific rights pertaining to receiving health services in Ontario. Some of these include but are not limited to the right to be informed about treatment options, the right to participate in decision-making and the right to treatment free of discrimination which recognizes one's privacy, dignity and individuality. Our goal is to empower consumers of the health care system with the rights to proper care and to participate in decisions regarding that care.

We strongly believe that the principles of the Canada Health Act are dedicated to ensuring that each Ontarian receives access to medically necessary services. It was to that end that we increased out-of-country OHIP coverage within weeks of taking office.

The Premier, the Minister of Health and all of us in the government recognized the importance of ensuring that people have the right to be informed of treatment options and to participate in the decisions made about the treatment. The Health Care Consent Act recognizes the principles when people are capable, but also goes further to allow other people to make decisions for their loved ones when they are not capable.

It is one of the reasons that we moved quickly as a government to amend the Consent to Treatment Act. We heard Mr Laughren talking about that this morning. Several people came before the committee and told us about the negative impact it had on patient care when they had to read the scripted message informing the patients about their rights when they were incapable. In many cases, it made difficult situations worse.

As the members know, the Legislature recently passed the Health Care Consent Act, which restores the balance between the patient, the family and the practitioner. It requires that health practitioners ensure that a person is provided with information about the consequences of the finding that he or she is incapable to decide about treatment in accordance with the guidelines established by the practitioners' governing body. This amendment was passed in committee and was in fact a compromise position that was supported by the Liberals, so I am not really clear why the member raises this issue again in paragraph 9 of

section 3 of her bill.

I am pleased to report to the House that we have already received guidelines from several of the colleges and that the others are required to submit theirs in the very near future. These guidelines will be reviewed in accordance with the intent of the Health Care Consent Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act to protect the public interest.

The member across the floor also makes an attempt in this bill to protect the privacy of health records. However, as she is aware, and as all of us are aware on the floor of the House, we have made a commitment to work with the Information and Privacy Commissioner to develop a comprehensive piece of legislation that will be much stronger in its ability to protect the confidentiality of patient information. I think we all recognize that two sentences in a bill such as this are not sufficient to protect the information and the rights of the people of Ontario.

I would like the members of this House today to know that Mrs Caplan was one of the major architects of the RHPA, an excellent statute, a bill she is very proud of and rightfully so, a bill which called on colleges to protect the public interest and which we as a government strongly support. The members will also know that under the RHPA, the colleges currently have professional misconduct regulations which stipulate that it is

an act of professional misconduct for a health professional not to respect the dignity of patients in a variety of ways.

Mrs Caplan's bill has a significant impact on these colleges in the province. My staff have spoken to members of the colleges and they are very concerned about this legislation. They are most concerned about the duplication and, in some cases, the conflict between her proposals and the existing mandate of the RHPA. I would like to quote from the letter I received from the College of Chiropractors of Ontario. This is addressed to me and it says:

"The bill only recently came to the attention of the college and we have not had sufficient opportunity to consider all of its implications, although we would of course support many of the general principles. Our initial review causes us serious concern about possible duplication and redundancy with the professional misconduct regulations under the provisions of specific acts as well as the Health Care Consent Act. There also appears to be some conflict with the current process relating to complaints and discipline established by the RHPA."

I also heard from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and they suggested that the bill creates a new mandatory procedure for processing complaints of professional misconduct under the bill. These new rules are not consistent with procedures set out in the Regulated Health Professions Act. Colleges will not know which complaints procedure is supposed to be used. They have many more comments and I'll make those available to Mrs Caplan after this talk. Perhaps the member, during her final wrapup, will inform the House about which colleges she has met with and discussed these implications with and what implications they will have to the professions that they're regulating.

As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to ensuring that the health care budget is maintained at $17.4 billion over the course of our mandate. We are also ensuring that services are maintained or enhanced in our local communities and we have made a number of announcements to that effect.

Mr Laughren, I think that you need to know and to listen carefully that we have made reinvestments in the community. We have provided $170 million to expand community-based long-term-care services.

Mr Laughren: Don't lecture me.

Mrs Johns: You're not listening. Maybe that's why you don't know that we've made these reinvestments; you're talking through this.

We announced $25 million for the expansion of dialysis services. We have reduced the waiting list in cardiac surgery by increasing by 19% the number of surgeries funded in Ontario. We have announced capital dollars so that communities can move forward with their restructuring plans. We have repatriated 76 patients with acquired brain injury who are currently receiving treatment in the United States. We have announced funding to help hospitals in small and rural communities maintain emergency room coverage in the evenings and on the weekends.

The number of announcements goes on and on and on. We are working hard to find savings within the health care envelope and to reallocate them to priority areas to ensure that our system remains sustainable in the future.

I want to make it clear that we support the principles in this bill today. We firmly believe in patient rights but we also firmly believe in self-regulation of colleges. This bill, however, has significant ramifications, particularly for professional colleges, and I am not convinced that they have been sufficiently consulted. I would welcome the opportunity to have a full and open discussion with the colleges and with interested people in Ontario about this bill.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'm obviously very proud to stand in support of this bill. I believe the

preamble to the bill is the most important aspect of the bill, which is

An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario.

Certainly bills of rights are enshrined in many different ways and in many different places. You can look at the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, which was passed by the United Nations on December 14, 1974. You can also look at the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which was passed at the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1959.

As we all know, there are 10 principles with regard to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and I thought I would read two, but now because I see the Minister of Education is in the audience today, I would allow him to listen carefully to principle 7.

First of all, let me deal with principle 4, because I believe the bill from the member for Oriole ties in very, very closely to this principle:

"The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health. To this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate prenatal and postnatal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services."

Principle 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child states:

"The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition."

I was going to stop there with those two principles -- there are 10 very interesting ones -- but I thought I would read principle 7 because it is so important for our discussion over the course of the last week and in the future.

"The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture, and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.

"The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.

"The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right."

Let me leave that one and go to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed by John Diefenbaker on August 4, 1960, and then enshrined in the Constitution in 1982 by the then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Let me try to tie the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians to the bill of rights introduced by the member for Oriole.

If you look at the first aspect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it guarantees rights and freedoms, which are very, very important to individuals regardless of age, sex etc, and if you look at the number one item in the bill introduced by the member for Oriole, you'll see "A person has the right to receive appropriate health care." Indeed that's a guarantee of rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution through this charter.

If you look at the second item in the charter, you will see "Fundamental Freedoms," and if you look at the second aspect of the member's bill of rights, it says, "A person has the right, and the responsibility, to participate in decisions made with respect to his or her health care on an equal footing with the health professionals who provide" the health care qualities which are important.

If you look at the third aspect of the Charter of Rights, "Mobility Rights," and compare that to item 4 of the member's bill, it states, "A person has the right to reasonable and timely access to appropriate health services."

We'll go on. If you look at the provision for the rights to have legal rights to life, liberty and security, you look at item 8 and you see it is addressed in this bill. Finally, if you look at the right of equality and look at item 5 of this bill, you will see that they are consistent.

The member for Oriole is not asking for anything new. She's asking for rights which are already enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and, most important, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I can't see how any member, regardless if they're in opposition or in government, can vote against this.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise also to speak briefly in support of this private member's bill from the member for Oriole. I have to confess that when I read this bill, I wondered why it needed to be in front of us, because when you look at the basic rights, they are rights you would think had been enshrined in previous legislation in one way or another.

They are the kinds of basic good-sense, commonsense, whatever phrase you want to use, rights we all, I think, would expect to see that we receive from our health care system, things like the right to receive appropriate health care, the right and responsibility to participate in decisions made with respect to the kind of care, and on and on and on.

So it is with some kind of surprise, I have to say, that I listened to the comments made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health when she categorizes, I presume, her opposition to this bill, in part because there are significant ramifications that flow from this bill that need to be looked at. That I find a little troubling, because I would hope these are exactly the kinds of rights that we would want to make sure, in one of the basic services we have in this society, our health care system, are actually there, codified in a way that doesn't attack or doesn't seek to attack those providers of the health care system.

I think we would all agree that the vast majority of people who provide health care in this province do so in a very good way, but that has never stopped us as a society from codifying in law and in regulations and in guidelines under the various other relevant pieces of legislation that guide and oversee the different professions, from putting in law these basic premises and these basic rights and responsibilities. That really is how I see this piece of legislation.

My colleague from Nickel Belt has I think correctly pointed out some of the interesting changes in position taken by members of the Liberal caucus, but I come to this particular point in the week reminding people that it is private members' hour, and as such we ought to look very clearly, in as non-partisan a way as we can, at the resolutions and bills that come before this House during this particular time.

So I would say to the members of the government, particularly to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, that if there are some concerns about conflicts or overlaps between what's in front of us here in this bill from the member for Oriole and other pieces of legislation, that's exactly what the committee process is in existence for. I would certainly urge people to support this legislation because in principle -- which is what, after all, this second reading is supposed to be about -- I think it does things that we should be supportive of.

It enshrines in legislation, in what would be popularly known as a patients' bill of rights, some of the basic rights we've talked about, and it also ensures there are mechanisms in place, again referring to the legislation that exists, the Health Care Consent Act, where that exists, and suggesting some new procedures where that isn't already covered by legislation that would deal with situations when there are conflicts.

One of the pieces I particularly appreciate in this bill is the very last section, which suggests there should be an informal resolution when there is any sense that rights have been violated, which I think follows the basic premise that we see in grievance processes in any kind of basic, commonsense situation where there is someone who feels their rights have been in any way violated, for them to have as the first responsibility a discussion and a resolution with the party they felt has breached those rights before proceeding with any formal complaints under the legislation.

Again, to me, this legislation is something that restates basic rights that we all should be not only in agreement with, but wondering why they aren't already there in the laws of this province. I see nothing but useful things that can come out of a piece of legislation like this. If there are issues around conflict with other pieces of legislation, those should be dealt with, but they should only be dealt with after we adopt this piece of legislation and send it to the appropriate committee, where those discussions can happen and that sorting out can take place. So I'm happy to stand in my place and support this bill.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm happy to engage in this private member's bill regarding enhancement of individual rights under the health care system. I compliment the former Minister of Health and member for Oriole for presenting it in terms of trying to gather up all these rights into an individual package.

She led the charge on the Regulated Health Professions Act, in which the various health care colleges and professions were to be the mediators, the resolvers, I suspect, of individual complaints. We've also had from the previous government the Advocacy Act, which was supposed to deal with specific problems for vulnerable people. It's interesting to note that we are here as legislators to deal with the grand principles of systems, but I have some fundamental reservations about how we think through the implementation of these principles.

For example, the member for Oriole has in her bill the enshrinement of timely access and appropriate health care for individuals, but I don't see any specific means of remediation for people who are unhappy campers with the system, unhappy consumers, customers. We don't seem to use those words in what I call a closed-loop system, medicare. For example, we have people waiting up to two years for hip replacement. One could get into a debate as to whether the person waiting is caught under this government's handling of health care or the previous governments'. The point is that those folks aren't getting dealt with.

I have an individual constituent who wrote to me about his wife when she died of Alzheimer disease and the way in which my constituent was in a sense put through the mill. All kinds of letters have gone out. I've written; there have been responses. But when it comes to translating these grand ideas into practical outcomes, we don't seem to really get to grips with how we're going to handle that.

What kind of means is there for the individual health care consumer today to deal with an unhappy outcome? Can they sue? Presumably, but you're caught up in the courts for years. Can you measure the outcome specifically and practically in terms of what level of appropriate health care he or she received as a patient? Is there any way in which the consumer, at the end of a health care exercise, operation, whatever it happens to be, has a kind of empowerment to tell the doctors, the health care providers, "I'm really happy" or "I'm not"? There's no means of accrediting the system, the hospital board, the individual, in a sense.

We talk about all these rights and grand principles, but when it comes down to the practical basis of everyday reality, whether you're dealing with timely access to health care or appropriate health care levels, we get into this debate of, well, these aren't being implemented because this government hasn't put the money back in, and on the other side we're supposed to be dealing with it in terms of the fact that everybody wants to be treated with sensitivity and dignity. I would like to hear from the member in terms of how we translate these things into specific, practical outcomes that realize happy health care consumers.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am pleased to join the discussion on this particular bill. I'd like to congratulate the member for Oriole for bringing this forward to the Legislature. As has been mentioned before, it is nothing new, it's something that we already know, but it serves to crystallize the problem that is associated with both the care receiver and the caregiver.

I wouldn't be totally surprised to hear that the government members do support the principle of the bill but they cannot support it on a vote. We have seen this before, unfortunately. I say "unfortunately" because they are saying again, "We like it, but it does not solve the health problem in Ontario." This bill, as proposed, is not intended to solve all the problems associated with the health care system in Ontario. It serves to crystallize two very important points: the duties, the responsibilities, receiving health care with compassion and dignity; and trying to minimize or eliminate any wrongdoing while a professional -- a physician, a doctor -- is rendering his or her service.

I hear that they cannot support it because of some unforeseen measures that are not contained in this bill. The thing that is really surprising is that, as the member for Oriole said, it's not costing taxpayers any money. How can anyone vote against proposed legislation that is trying to provide good care for those in need at no cost to anyone? It is just beyond anybody's comprehension.

I'd like to compliment the member for Oriole for bringing this to the forefront because, want it or not, there are serious problems out there associated with the cuts we have seen coming from the government of the day, and I'll tell you why. We're receiving at our offices people, visits, calls of inequities and partiality, if you will, no longer vested under the umbrella of the universality system. We're moving far away from that. Unfortunately, there are too many cases coming out, almost on a daily basis, where patients or family members no longer receive the care of a particular hospital or home care because those services are no longer there.

Interjection.

Mr Sergio: It is?

Mrs Johns: We reinvested $170 million in long-term care.

Mr Sergio: I can appreciate and I accept what the member is saying. However, if it is the case that more money's being reinvested in the health care system, how come we see that the health care system in Ontario, especially for the frail, is deteriorating so fast, to the point that seniors are completely shocked when they go into a hospital to receive health care and they either feel mistreated or are not given the care they expected to receive when they approached a hospital or another care system?

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I would appreciate a little more sense of dignity in the House. I would remind the member for Huron that I asked for order.

Mr Sergio: Mr Speaker, I'm quite pleased to have the interjections by the member for Huron because this shows you and the people of Ontario the nerve that this innocuous, if you will, bill has touched. For heaven's sake, if it is not costing taxpayers any money, if it helps to provide better health care for our people, why would she be speaking against it and go along with their own members?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Unbelievable.

Mr Sergio: It is totally unbelievable; yes, indeed.

The bill provides two major components: to ensure, with dignity, health care to patients and to provide some safety net for those providing health care. I do hope that the members of this House, especially on the government side, may reconsider and support the bill.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate in support of my colleague the member for Oriole's fine bill. It is timely that the bill is before us, because I don't think there's any question in anyone's mind that in the next two to three years health care in the province will be in turmoil. There's no doubt of that. The government has cut almost 20% from hospital budgets and all of us, every one of us in our constituencies, is dealing with our hospitals, which are faced with a significant, very dramatic problem in accommodating an almost 20% cut in their budgets. That's not debatable.

I realize the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who's barking as usual, doesn't like to hear that, but that's the facts. You have cut almost 20% from the hospital budgets. Everybody understands that. My own local hospital, Scarborough Grace Hospital, one of the finest hospitals you'll find without question, has been cut by 5%.

So why is this bill important, Mr Speaker? I know you'll understand it. It is because as hospitals are looking at almost a 20% cut, people who are looking for this Legislature to ensure a quality health care system need some protection. There's no doubt that what the government's going to do is -- it has said, "We're going to maintain health spending at $17.4 billion," for those of you watching this. It will be a charade. They will find programs in other ministries, move them over to the health budget and say: "Well, public, we're going to fool you. We're still going to spend $17.4 billion, but we'll simply move programs."

Mr Laughren: They have already started it.

Mr Phillips: As my colleague from Nickel Belt said, you've already started. You announced it a week and a half ago. You moved some things from Comsoc, community and social services, into the health budget. Why? One reason only: "Take the spending up in health, cut it out somewhere else, while we're maintaining spending in health."

Why do we need this bill? Because the public needs some protection as you're moving forward on your agenda. We know what your agenda is. You've got to find $8 billion, you've got to slash budgets in order to fund the tax cut. Two weeks from today, or in two weeks, you're going to announce the tax cut. You'll all be on your feet here -- believe me, guaranteed -- you will be on your feet here in two weeks wildly cheering the tax cut --

Mr Baird: Hear, hear.

Mr Phillips: Well, you can start now. I appreciate that. In fact many of the public will love it, there's no question of that. But they will realize in about 12 months, 18 months or two years the price they paid for the tax cut. One of the big prices they paid is that you broke a promise, you broke a fundamental promise on health care. You have slashed health care. Why? Because you've got to find the money for the tax cut. So when people in two weeks from now say, "Thank you for that tax cut, I really appreciate it," in 12 months, 18 months, 36 months from now they will realize that it was funded through a dramatic cut in our very treasured health care system.

There we are. That is why my colleague from Oriole proposes this bill -- that's one of the reasons she proposes it -- to ensure that as this government proceeds, the fundamental thing we're here for, a quality health care system, is maintained and protected for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole has two minutes.

Mrs Caplan: I'd like to thank those members of the House who spoke in support of this bill. For those who are watching the debate and those who are here in the House, the procedures of this House allow for the tabling of a bill, second reading, debate in principle, the bill can then go to committee for amendment and fine-tuning, and it comes back for third reading. This is second reading debate in principle.

I would encourage those on the government side and those in the House who may have concerns about whether this bill is perfect or not to say that those imperfections, if there are any, can be amended and fixed at committee. I would hope it would go to the social development committee so that could happen, but I hope all members of this House will support this bill in principle.

I would say to them that it is not inconsistent with any piece of legislation. What it does is expand the existing rights that are in other pieces of legislation and clearly in one bill states that they apply to everyone in the province. It is not an unnecessary duplication.

In fact, it is a duplication of what is already existing in some pieces of legislation, but it is appropriate duplication because we cannot restate too often the rights that we have, nor is it an unnecessary duplication to put all of those rights in a compendium in one place where it can act as both a public education tool and an opportunity for people to know what their rights and responsibilities are. It is a restatement of those rights, not a duplication.

I know there are some concerns from the colleges about the impact on the regulated health professions legislation. I would say to them and to all members of this House, there is nothing in this bill that would have a negative impact on those colleges. If they believe there is, we could amend the bill at committee. I would be open to do that. The intention here is to ensure that the public interest is protected and that we defend ourselves against the dismantling of health care by enshrining individual rights and let people know what those rights are.

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Silipo moved private member's notice of motion number 14:

That in the opinion of this House, since there is a significant and growing sense of cynicism and alienation towards the political process of Ontario and it is to the benefit of all to restore the relevance of government in people's lives; and

Since the present system does little to address the growing cynicism among the electorate towards the political process; and

Since the fairest and most democratic system of election is one which results in the composition of the Legislature reflecting as closely as possible the preferences of the electorate; and

Since the present "first past the post" system of electing members to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario does not mirror the voters' preferences adequately, usually resulting in majority governments being formed by a party receiving a minority of voter support; and

Since the present legislative system grants little constructive role to the opposition parties although they usually represent a majority of voters' preferences; and

Since the Mike Harris government is committed to introducing legislation to change the electoral system by reducing the number of MPPs in the Legislative Assembly and this will provide an opportunity to review the entire electoral system to make it more democratic;

Therefore, as one major part of reforming the electoral system of Ontario,

(

a) Members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should be elected by a system of proportional representation which would better reflect the wishes of the voters and promote better representation of women and the diversity of Ontario in the Legislature; and

(

b) This system should be applied on a regional basis to maintain the appropriate balances between urban and rural Ontario; and

(

c) The Legislative Assembly committee should examine the various possible models of proportional representation which could be applied to Ontario; and

(

d) The Legislative Assembly committee should report back to the Legislative Assembly with one or more models of proportional representation for Ontario which could be incorporated by the government into the legislative changes required to reform the electoral system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. This resolution clearly calls on us to look seriously at changing the way in which we elect members to this Legislative Assembly and looks seriously at adopting proportional representation as the method we should do that by.

I should say at the outset that on the proportional representation, there are a number of models that exist throughout the world, so it's important that people not think of proportional representation as one system. The basic tenet of it, of course, is similar in each of those jurisdictions and it is based on the sense that people vote for a party, very consciously knowing that the vote they cast in the election will translate itself roughly in the same proportion of members, in the Legislative Assembly in this case. That's the essential principle.

I would suggest that is a more democratic way of reflecting, through the electoral process, the wishes of the people of the province. So I bring this forward because I believe it is one of the ways to make our system of government more democratic.

All of us know the growing cynicism that exists out there towards not just individuals or political parties but indeed to the whole electoral process and to all politicians. I think it behooves us, again irrespective of political parties, to look at ways in which we can make the whole system of government more relevant to people and thereby also attack that sense of cynicism that exists out there.

I am not suggesting that simply changing the system of government is going to, in and of itself, resolve all of those problems that exist out there. I believe other changes should be seriously contemplated. I'm one who has long advocated, for example, for a greater role by individual members in the Legislature. As one example, I've continuously supported in a very strong way the private members' hour as being fundamental to the workings of this Legislature, but also to better democracy in this province, and would actually be happy to see that expanded in a number of ways.

I'm one who believes that both as it relates to individual members of the opposition and individual backbenchers within the government, there ought to be more flexibility in terms of the role people play; that bills that come from the government, for example, should not been seen as hard and fast.

I argued this when I was in government and I argue this today. So it's not a question of going at one party or another. It's a fundamental principle that I believe in, because I think in that kind of give and take that takes place through the committee process, by listening to the public, by listening to each other, we can make better laws. I think above and beyond the philosophical and partisan views that we bring to any issues, which are also a very legitimate part of the political process, we would also want to acknowledge that there is something we can learn from each other when we actually listen to each other.

Unfortunately, the process we have in place now is one that is so rigidly set that it really doesn't allow for that kind of healthy debate and healthy give and take. So I believe there are a number of changes that should be made to the way in which this place works that would make it more relevant for people and therefore would help to break that sense of cynicism.

I believe that fundamental to any changes we would want to make has to be the way in which we are elected to this place. I think if you look back at the history of elections in this province, and indeed at the national level, you will find that in election after election, until you go back in time to the 1930s -- and we now have the experience of every single party of the three main parties in Ontario having formed the government -- every single party which has formed a majority government has never done so with a majority of the popular vote; it's always been done on the basis of a minority of votes.

That is rendered even worse, in my view, when you look at the fact that the proportion of the vote that each party gets is not even equivalent to the proportion of people who could vote, because of course not everyone who can vote does.

For example, if you want to take a look at the last couple of elections, we see a situation in which in the last election the Conservatives formed the majority government after winning 44.8% of those who voted, which represented only about 28% of the eligible electorate. In the previous election to that, because again I want to make sure this is not seen in a partisan way, when the party that I'm a member of in the 1990 election formed a majority government with 37.6% of the vote, that only represented 24% of the eligible electorate.

So there are problems, as you see, with the system in terms of it not reflecting a majority and, on the other side of it, in effect putting the opposition, who do collectively receive a majority, in a situation where they collectively only can muster a minority of votes in this House.

That again is something that transcends this current Legislature. It goes back in time, as I say, right through our political history. So I believe it's something we need to change. I believe it's something that would make the system more relevant to people.

One of the arguments I've heard against this notion is, "Wouldn't it mean we would likely have more minority governments in this province?" To that I would have to acknowledge that it may be the case. But I would say two things to that.

First of all, it would be a decision which the people of the province would make more consciously, knowing in effect that under the proportional system of election, they would be making that decision as to whether they wanted to vote wholeheartedly for one party or indeed if they did not.

Secondly, I would also say, look back at the history of this province and indeed you will find that some of the changes in law that were made during the time of minority governments -- and again we've had various combinations of minority governments in this province, so that's what makes it even more relevant -- you will find that some of the more lasting changes in any area of law that you want to look at are those that have come about as a result of minority governments.

Why? Because it is when you have that situation that you have to build a broader consensus and a broader acceptance as to the changes you want to bring about. Isn't that, after all, the basis of democracy, of having in effect not just a party which happens to command for a three-, four- or five-year period a majority of votes being able to come in and do what they wish and then having another government come in a couple of years after that and completely change that around?

How is that at the end of the day reflecting the wishes of the people of the province, as opposed to a system that allows perhaps some more gradual change but yet change that reflects a broader consensus within our population and therefore is more lasting and transcends in some ways even the partisan differences that all of us obviously bring to this House, and legitimately so? That is one of the fundamental reasons why I also believe the proportional system of government is one that would make more sense.

Looking at Ontario and recognizing that there are indeed a variety of differences that are reflected in our current system in terms of balancing, for example, northern Ontario, which has large areas geographically that have to be represented with relatively smaller populations than, for example, an area like Metropolitan Toronto, I believe that if we were to look at a system of proportional representation, we would need to look at it on a regional basis that would maintain that sense of balance. Otherwise, we would really be skewing the representation disproportionately, I would argue, in favour of the large urban centres.

I would argue that that's part of the work we would need to do, and that's why I've also suggested a process for us to deal with this, which is that we look at this through the Legislative Assembly committee.

We could look, through that examination, at the various models that exist throughout the world, models such as the one in Israel, which uses a complete proportional representation on a national level, to models like in Germany, which has a hybrid model between having half of their members elected on the proportional system and half elected on the single-member constituencies that we use, which I personally would think is probably a more useful model for us to take a look at.

But again I'm suggesting that this is something we should look seriously at through the Legislative Assembly committee, and particularly do so now, because clearly the government of the day has indicated its intention to reduce the number of seats. So there are going to be changes.

I, for one, am quite happy to support that reduction of the number of members in this Legislature, but I also say to the government members that therefore now is the time for us to look a little bit more broadly at the whole system we have in this province and to bring back some suggestions to this Legislative Assembly that the government could look at as potential models to weave into the legislation they would need to bring in in order to put into law their intent to reduce the number of seats.

It's with that intent of wanting to promote a discussion and wanting to promote a process that allows for that discussion that I ask members to support this resolution.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's my pleasure to speak against this resolution this morning in the House. In the

preamble, Mr Silipo mentions the growing cynicism in this province, in this country, about politics and politicians. There certainly is, and I think it's fuelled by resolutions such as this. Today, now that the third party sits in opposition, they believe it's an excellent idea to change the entire premise behind our parliamentary democracy, when for the last five years Mr Silipo and his colleagues were in a position to mandate that change. I think that sort of opportunistic approach to democracy is inappropriate, to say the least.

It's a topic with which the member is eminently familiar. You will recall that in 1990 his party was elected with the smallest ever percentage popular vote to translate into a majority government: 37%. Clearly, if there was ever a time to go to proportional representation, it was in 1990, because 63% of the people in this province did not want the policies, did not want the personnel, of what is today the third-place party, the NDP. Our support, at 45%, is clearly higher than what the NDP achieved in 1990; in fact it's one of the highest percentages of popular support in recent memory.

What is even more appropriate perhaps is to recognize that while there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and you can play fun with numbers, the bottom line is that the majority of members on this side of the House at least were elected with over 50% popular vote in their own riding. Based on the system we have today, it is what happens within each riding that is relevant to the election of members. In my case it was 55% of the people of Scarborough East who chose the policies of the PC Party. I believe I do have the right to stand in this House -- not 55% of me in this House and 45% of somebody else whose policies were repudiated by the majority of voters in my riding.

It stretches credibility, as Mr Silipo has put in his resolution, to say, and I'm quoting, the opposition "represent a majority of voters' preferences." I guess, depending on how one defines "opposition" on any given question on any given day, perhaps you can make that case. But his party received only 20% of the popular vote in last June's election, clearly not deserving of any kind of disproportionate representation. In fact, the number of seats they have is only a half dozen less than they would have achieved had there been proportional representation last year.

It's that kind of math that lets his party say that a $10-billion annual deficit and $100 billion in accumulated debt were good for jobs, growth and opportunity. But they found out last June that those policies were clearly repudiated.

Why not go one step further and scrap Parliament altogether? Why don't we just sign a long-term contract with Angus Reid to poll the populace on issues of the day? That would give you a true representation; that would take away any bias. We would be able to rule every day on what the majority of Ontarians believe on any issue. Of course, it's slanted by the way Angus Reid poses the question, but I guess it would solve the conscience of those who were defeated in the last election that this was somehow a more fair system.

With his motion, this member would throw out the history of hundreds of years of parliamentary democracy, a finely tuned and representative political system. The system is based on the principle that every area of our province has fair and equal representation in government. The system he proposes cannot come anywhere close to matching the level of fair representation from the regions that parliamentary democracy guarantees.

The most obvious weakness is that there would almost always be a minority government, and as long as the voting traditions we've seen in the last 30, 40 years were maintained, we would wind up with a scenario much like Italy's, which has seen four general elections in the last three years and 55 general elections in the last 51 years.

According to Elections Ontario, when you recognize that the cost of holding an election is $42 million, you can do the math and figure out what further debt we would have in this province if we had indulged that sort of flight of fancy that the Italians have. By the way, the Italians are now desperately trying to change and go to a system more akin to a parliamentary democracy, such as the one we enjoy here today.

Another concern would be the arbitrary selection of candidates. In most proportional representations across the world, it is the leader who then selects who will sit in the government or in the opposition benches, depending on their ranking.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Where would Peter Kormos be under that system?

Mr Gilchrist: Where would any member be? Right now, it is the people in every riding who have a chance to meet their candidates face to face, to hear their policies, to know exactly where they stand on the local issues as well as the provincial issues. They're able to pass judgement on the quality of candidates who are standing in the name of each of those three parties. We're not a system based on a red book or a blue book or a green book.

We are a system where the voters of this province have a chance to talk to the candidates and to determine for themselves who is credible, who is honest, who is going to do the best job of standing up for their interests in this House. The voters had that chance last June and the results are here in this chamber today.

I for one would be very concerned, for example, that if the system had worked out, that even if Mr Harris had been the winner last year under a system of proportional representation, he would have been able to pick 82 members at will. I don't know if it would be the same 82 members the voters selected. The same would hold true for Mrs McLeod and the former leader of the third party, Mr Rae. Clearly the system we have today more accurately reflects the wishes of local voters.

Certainly the aim of better representation of women and the diversity of Ontario in this Legislature is a very laudable goal, but imposing mandatory quotas for who should be elected, as the member's first recommendations would seem to suggest by encouraging "better representation of women and...diversity" -- we saw the results of that in the quotas they brought forward on job hiring, since repudiated by the voters and rejected by our government.

Aside from being a great ideal, his resolution does nothing to further democracy, does nothing to promote fairness and is opposed to our accepted notions of democracy, one of the central pillars of equality in this country.

Our government will introduce, as promised, legislation to reduce the number of representatives in this chamber, and I'm immensely proud of that fact. We will be reducing from 130 down to 103 the number of MPPs. If the federal members can represent the relevant number of voters they do, I think it's incumbent upon us to follow that example and, in so doing, save the taxpayers even more money. We will lead by example and show the people of Ontario that even in this Legislature we can do better with less.

With this reduction, our government will continue to do what we said we would do during the June 8 election. The fairest and most democratic political system is one that allows its people to vote for the party that best represents their interests, leaves them free of government interference in their everyday lives and allows them to prosper. That is the system of parliamentary democracy, and our government will continue to uphold those traditions of fairness and equality. Again, with all due respect, I will be voting against Mr Silipo's resolution.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I would like to thank the honourable member for Dovercourt for bringing forward this very important resolution. The issues it raises about parliamentary representation I believe are critical to the future of this Legislature and even to the democratic process itself.

I would first like to offer a brief word in support of the idea of proportional representation. Only in a two-party system does the current "first past the post" system represent the will of the majority. As a result, since the emergence of the NDP in Ontario, we have seen the election of majority governments that were not the choice of the majority of voters. It is not surprising then if electors feel that the reins of government are controlled by arcane forces beyond their control. A review of that system should therefore, I believe, be given serious consideration by this Legislature.

That being said, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes about an issue that my honourable colleague has raised in this resolution and that I and others feel passionately about. In the course of the last election, the Premier dramatically illustrated how he would reduce the number of members of Parliament in Ontario. A lineup of some 30 chairs represented the number of elected members who would be removed from the Legislature under his government.

For some people this was a positive message, but it suggested an idea that needs to be examined more closely: Can the number of provincial legislators be significantly reduced without diminishing the electorate's right to democratic representation?

I stand today to urge caution. I stand today to warn against grandstanding for easy votes from a weary public. I stand today to urge sober consideration of the consequences of such action. We hear people complain every day that they have no voice in government. What's being suggested is a further erosion of their chance to have a say. It's really not about protecting the jobs of a number of those among us. I think we would all agree that being a politician is not the easiest job, and our fan club is small. Rather it's about protecting the interests of the people of this province and enhancing the effectiveness of their representatives.

Assuming that legislation would be introduced, I would like to touch upon some of the issues that will need to be considered. I hope therefore that the debate on this resolution would be just the beginning of a discussion that will involve all members of all parties and not be restricted to those around the cabinet table. We must resolve these serious issues using the best information and experience available so that democracy is enhanced, not eroded, by any changes that are brought about.

The Common Sense Revolution promised to cut the number of MPPs from 130 to 99, suggesting that the reduction would save taxpayers money. Beyond appealing to the cynical view that non-existent politicians are the best politicians, the idea in reality makes no sense from either a practical or a financial point of view.

The practice of politics and governing has changed dramatically since the years 1955 to 1960, when Ontario last had the number of legislators being suggested. Apart from representing a much smaller population, MPPs attended very short legislative sessions. They were not involved in committee work as we know it. They had no members' offices and did virtually no constituency work. Politics was the domain of the backroom politician. The public expectation and legislators' commitment to constituent representation were different then. I wonder if this is what the Conservatives envision for the future: a muting of the public's voice and a concentration of power in the hands of a few.

An argument can be made for increasing the number of MPPs, rather than cutting our numbers back. In 1955 each member represented on average some 54,000 constituents. Today each member represents 86,000. Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction that has reduced its legislative membership, justified on the basis of a shrinking population.

With respect to concerns about cost, an American study has shown that smaller legislatures spend more per capita, not less, and therefore "A size reduction cannot be expected to lower the state's budget significantly." Logic would suggest that should the number of MPPs be reduced, larger numbers of constituents would raise each member's campaign and operational costs. The costs of maintaining a satisfactory level of constituency work would also rise, and so would travel and the need for staff.

I must admit that I have an aversion to putting a cost on democracy. I've been an election observer in countries where democracy does not exist, where they long for what we have, where what we have cannot be bought but must be struggled for. Democracy may indeed bear a heavy cost, but even so, we must not withdraw its mechanisms for the saving of a few dollars. No modern jurisdiction has ever reduced the numbers of its representatives. England, the democratic system we model ourselves after, has not conceived to do so, even under the most conservative of governments and the greatest of financial pressures.

The government's thought is to harmonize provincial riding boundaries with those of the federal government. Common sense, perhaps, until you consider the scope and complexity of issues dealt with by federal politicians as compared to those of provincial representatives. The concerns we deal with at Queen's Park affect our constituents more directly every day. We need to be responsive to their concerns on a level that federal politicians dealing with national issues do not.

I would like to return to the issue that must concern us most of all. How can we best meet the need of the people of Ontario for a fair and responsive government? How can we safeguard a democratic system that we sometimes find so easy to take for granted and forget to be passionate about? On the other hand, how can we argue against the prevailing cynicism about politicians who work for nothing but their own interests if we draw farther away from them?

This will not be a topic for dinner conversation for most of our constituents, but this subject touches on our responsibility as legislators more than any other. It concerns the very fabric of governing, the preservation of the precious tools of democracy, transcending politics, serving those who elected us.

I would like to appeal, especially to the new members of the government, about how serious an issue this is. Do not sacrifice a democratic system our ancestors fought so hard to achieve for the sake of a few votes. The implications of a move like this are very, very profound. I urge you to do your homework, to learn from the experience of those in other jurisdictions who envy what we have been able to achieve. In closing, I urge the government to reconsider scoring short-term political points at the cost of compromising the democratic process. I urge the members present to support this resolution.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the five minutes that I have, I would like to try to go through this as systematically as I can so the members, especially the members of the government who are first elected here, truly understand what this resolution is all about. The issue here, guys, and I'll say it that way, is that the role of the MPPs in the present system of Parliament that we have now is very limited unless you happen to find yourself in the inner cabinet of Mike Harris's government or formerly in the inner cabinet of Bob Rae's government. That's the issue.

That is an issue not only for you as a member, your role and how you do your work here and how you represent your constituents, but it is also a role of representing the people that you're supposedly elected to come here to speak on behalf of.

The reality in this place, because we have a "first past the post" system, is that we elect governments by majority even though the majority of people across the province, the total percentage of people, didn't want -- for example, the Mike Harris government, with 44% or 45%, ends up in a majority government. So therefore, 55% of Ontarians don't have a say because you have a majority of seats. In our government, with Bob Rae around 40% of the popular vote, 60% of the people of Ontario didn't have a say. That is not how democracy should work.

The real problem here, quite simply, is that unless you're a member of Mike Harris's inner cabinet, you have no say. You sit in the back benches, you have to support what your government tells you to do; if you don't, you get disciplined. Is that the way you're supposing to represent the people of your riding? Is that what you want to be remembered as your contribution to this place? You guys have no clue; that's the problem. I think you need to start getting the point of this.

The larger issue here is that we need to try to find a way that all members of this assembly coming here have an incentive to be able to work with all three parties, so that we're able to build a consensus on what legislation is needed for Ontarians. Just because I'm a New Democrat doesn't mean I'm always right; neither does it mean that, as a Conservative, every idea you have is right.

What should be happening in this Legislature, which is not happening now, is that there should be a greater cooperation between all three parties, so that when the government of the day says, "We want to balance a budget over a four-year period," there is at least a meeting of the minds and a working together of all the members in this assembly so that we can involve those people in our constituencies in those decisions and we're able to work together to get to the overall aim of what the government wants to do.

The way it sits now is, if you're not a member of the cabinet, you have absolutely no say. I don't see that as proper representation of the people of this riding.

Mr Gilchrist: That's not true. I mean, just because you did it.

Mr Bisson: That is true. That's the point. That's how it works for you guys. Our government tried to change that by making sure that the backbenchers had a greater say in caucus, and I think we went a long way towards doing that. But as many changes as we made as a government, I still think the system of Parliament that we have now isn't perfect.

What we are talking about doing in this resolution is simply this: It's to say, "Refer this matter off to a committee," because the government has stated it wants to reduce the number of MPPs in this House. I don't agree with that view. I think that is cheap politics trying to play into a cynicism of people out there by saying: "We're smart, we're best, we know how to do it.

We're going to reduce the number of MPPs in this place, and somehow magically that's going to fix the problems of Parliament." It's going to do absolutely nothing to fix the problems of Parliament; all it will do is reduce the number of seats by some 20-odd members, saving you a few bucks. But what does that get you for changes in Parliament? It does absolutely nothing. What does that do for democracy? It does absolutely nothing.

In a constituency like mine, what will happen in my riding under the new boundaries is that the ridings of Cochrane South and Cochrane North will be merged. Either myself or my colleague Len Wood will run in the next election and will be elected back to this Parliament. The point becomes that whoever that person might be, he's going to have to try to service the needs of those communities, which find themselves geographically spread by as much as 700 miles. How you can do that properly is beyond me. They say that the federal members are doing it now. The federal members are not doing it now. That's one of the real issues going on.

I say in all sincerity to the members opposite that we as parliamentarians should be trying to reform our system of Parliament so that it works not only for the public in regard to how our constituents have a say in this House, but how the members themselves work together so that we can work towards a consensus about how certain matters could be done. I see that as a positive force. If you're able to bring all three parties together to find solutions for common problems, I think in the end you have a much stronger product with a much stronger buy-in on the part of people.

The problem with our system of politics today, especially the way you guys are going as Tories, is the polarization of the people in this province. They are either with you or they are against you. I don't see that as a particularly powerful thing. There are lots of examples we can look at. We can look at what was done in New Zealand, which has a new system coming out in 1997.

I think there was all kinds of opportunity and I would ask members to at least support this so that we can move forward with the debate and try to find a way to make Parliament really work for the people we represent.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd first like to compliment the member for Dovercourt for introducing this resolution and for his concern about proportional representation, recognizing women, recognizing diversity in Ontario and also regional representation.

There are several systems of proportional representation -- the list system, the single transferable vote system, the mixed electoral system, to name a few -- but these systems are all very complicated and very confusing to the electorate. If they're cynical now, just imagine how cynical they would become if we were to introduce a very complicated voting system.

With proportional representation it's extremely difficult to get a majority government. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't have had a majority government since 1937 here in Ontario if we had gone to proportional representation.

Proportional representation tends to encourage minority governments, tends to lead to a coalition style of government. When voters go out to vote, they're really not electing a government; when the government is formed, it's negotiations that go on after the election has occurred. This is when coalitions occur.

Negotiations don't just stop when the coalition government is organized. Those negotiations go on and on throughout the life of the government until finally that government collapses and we're back to another $42-million election. At least, that's what it costs here in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. There is disorder in the House. This particular corner seems to be a problem. I would like to warn the member for Brantford that I'm a patient man but my patience is wearing just a little thin.

Mr Galt: Voting in proportional representation is extremely complex and ends up in voter confusion and complicated mathematical formulas. Granted, it does bring about better voter turnout, but the spoilage of ballots is much higher. I don't think we can afford, in this country, in a time of cynicism of the voter, to add confusion to the process.

Proportional representation encourages the emergence of extreme views. It takes these views, enhances their legitimacy and carries on far longer than the current whim that puts them in place, and that's certainly not advantageous to the parliamentary system. Unfortunately, it adds to the proliferation of parties. I for one believe that we have enough parties here in Ontario and that we don't need the large number of parties they have, say, in Italy.

Mr Gilchrist: There's one too many already.

Mr Galt: Yes, there is one too many already.

There is a very high cost in changing the electoral system, and this point in time, when we're having to get our budget under control and trying to balance our budget, is no time to be moving to a more expensive electoral system.

The public are reasonably satisfied with the system we have today. They understand it. They do not believe it's perfect, but they certainly recognize the position we're in and they're not clamouring for a new change.

This is a very foreign concept to move in the British system. Really, when you're changing the electoral system, it should be by small changes so they're followed by the electorate, not great, big, major changes such as leaping to proportional representation.

There are many benefits to our present system. With the present system, we regularly have a majority government through a single party. It creates a more stable government, more capable of enacting legislative programs. I'm sure the NDP appreciated that when it was in government. It's relatively simple in the eyes of the electorate and there are no complicated formulas with our present system.

The Canadian Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing pointed out that the levels of women represented in elected assemblies are often attributable to variables other than the electoral system. For example, political parties' adoption of quotas for women candidates only seems to work when the quota system comes in.

We are looking at a new system of representation here in the province of Ontario. It's already been referred to. We're looking at dropping some 27 members, to 103. I believe that will simplify the process here in the province of Ontario. We can make the ridings the same size, we can make the polls the same size. It will be easier for the public to understand. We can even go a step further to make the polls the same size and the same shape for municipalities. We might even go another step whereby enumeration is the responsibility of the individual resident in that municipality.

In

summary, I would like to stress the fact that I cannot support this particular resolution because this resolution would increase the confusion and the frustration of our electorate here in the province of Ontario. It would reduce the power of the voter, and this is a time when voters want to be more empowered rather than less.

To encourage multiple parties and more coalition governments -- I do not believe that's the direction to go, as has been occurring in Italy -- is a totally new system, and really we should be building on the present British system that we've used for so many years and have developed a tradition here in the province of Ontario. Going to proportional representation will not enhance the number of women here in the Legislature, it will not enhance the diversity, and that kind of proportional representation I don't believe is going to really enhance regional representation unless we come in with the quota system.

We have a system. It's been a tradition. It's not perfect, but it's a very good system. It's been working for many years, and I for one can continue to support our present system and not this resolution.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am pleased to join the debate on this private member's bill, and I wish to compliment the member for Dovercourt for bringing this to the attention of the House.

If the level of debate that is going on this morning on this private member's bill is an indication, that is why we do indeed need some reform -- some badly needed reform.

There is absolutely no reason why private members' bills such as this one here should die in the House when they are introduced for the first debate. This is an indication that deals are made, especially when we have a majority government. Deals are made behind the door and they are brought into the House, and those decisions are rubber-stamped against the will of the people. Good private members' bills die on the floor of the House without giving the people an opportunity to hear them, to hear the benefits or not. There is no private member's bill that should die on the floor of the House. Automatically, they should at least have some public input.

I would say, without reservation, that if this were the case, some very good private members' bills, with some very good ideas, wouldn't die on the floor of the House but would go forward and would make life much better for the people of Ontario. Unfortunately, when decisions are made behind doors, the political decisions made in this House, the ones who suffer are the people of Ontario.

As the government says in principle, at least we could say let's support it in principle. The bill as it is presented does nothing more than to seek if there is indeed a better way to represent the people of Ontario, the people we so much wish to represent.

I have to take some serious concern with the member for Scarborough East when he says that every member in this House has been elected by over 50%. I would really like to see that. When a government is elected with 35%, 40% of the popular vote, I would like to see if every man indeed has been elected with 50% or more. But if that is the case, with political decisions, especially when you have a majority government, the only people to suffer are the people themselves.

The member for Dovercourt is saying, "I have an idea," this is the presentation of a private member's bill, let's give it a chance, let's give it an opportunity to go to committee level, to hear what the public has to say, and then, if there is nothing that would make the existing system any better, let's kill it at the time. But until that happens, we should not base our decisions solely on a political basis because many good-intentioned private members' bills die on the floor of this House because of political decisions without allowing the public out there to voice their approval or disapproval.

Most of the time many good intentions die because of political interference, political decisions, decisions that are made behind closed doors in somebody's caucus and then brought into this House and rubber-stamped.

There are many cases. We have seen this morning, for example, with the health bill proposal by the member for Oriole, the government say it is good, but it doesn't solve the problem so we can't support it. My goodness. Two weeks ago we saw my own private member's bill on insurance and we have seen the critic himself saying it is wonderful, does nice things, but since it doesn't solve all the problems associated with the insurance system, we can't support it. How do you like that, Mr Speaker?

Things that really do good for our people do not receive the necessary support of the House because of political interference. I wish to support the bill as it is presented. Let's give it an opportunity, let it come back and see what proposal we could indeed support.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the chance this morning to stand in this House and support the resolution by my colleague from Dovercourt. I think it's an idea whose time has come. It's certainly not a new idea. It's an idea that has been around for a long time.

It certainly precedes our time in government and the present government's tenure and has been talked about actually to some extent even in my own riding association. It was brought up at various times by individuals who would come to particularly annual meetings where resolutions are debated and brought forward to provincial conventions. It's an idea that in Sault Ste Marie has been particularly championed by Ted Hallin, who as late as last Monday at our annual meeting had a resolution passed by our own riding association that will go to our provincial convention in June in support of the notion, the idea, the concept that the member for Dovercourt has presented here this morning.

I think it's appropriate and timely, probably in two respects: one is what this government is proposing to do by way of downsizing the size of this House, and by that, I suggest to you, diminishing democracy in the province, where we should be trying to reach out and be in conversation with more people. What this government is proposing is going to do less of that and make this place more the place of the élite to come and present their ideas and have them become the order of the day.

Certainly in the north we will feel the brunt of what this government is proposing by way of changes to the electoral map, and I think we will find ourselves less and less with a voice and more out of the loop, not to speak of many of the communities of people that the member for Dovercourt in his resolution refers to. They have felt over the years and still continue to feel that they really don't have a voice in this place.

If you look at what has happened in the last five to 10 years in this Legislature and what people in my constituency are saying to me about that, I think it gives us reason for some concern, and also should give us some energy and momentum to actually move forward and have the courage to make the kind of change that is required so that this place truly becomes a democracy and representative of the diversity of people, of geographic areas and all the other things that make us both unique and one and also different, so that we can make decisions that reflect a respect for that.

I know in my own constituency the swings we have seen in this place, by way of majority governments that are actually elected by a minority of citizens, are reason enough for us to pass this resolution so that we can have that conversation and that debate that will hopefully lead us to making some change, and hopefully some change in the spirit and direction that is suggested by the resolution in front of us here today.

In the interests of democracy, knowing that the essence of democracy is that more and more people have a voice and that the debate that happens in this place more effectively reflects that, I suggest that today is a good time to begin the discussion, to carry forward the discussion that is proposed here re the changes that are suggested so that we don't have in the jurisdiction of Ontario continual swings, and I say this without any apologies, from way left to way right, and a population out there that become the victims of some of the decisions that are made.

I know being in government over the last five years and listening to the leader of our party, the then Premier, Bob Rae, on different occasions say that a government has to be careful that it doesn't get too far out in front of the people it governs, I think the kind of government we have now, the electoral process we have now allows for that kind of thing, and I think it does us all, in the long run, more damage than it does good. So I'm standing here today in support of my colleague's motion and I'm urging other people to do the same.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'm pleased to be able to join in this debate because I want to try to bring it back to the focus that the member for Dovercourt originally put on it. I generally believe that more democracy is a good thing, and it goes with that that less democracy is a bad thing. What we have in Ontario now is a trend towards less democracy. If you look at the voter turnout and the voter turnout trends in provincial elections, you will see we are headed in a direction where the turnouts now are 60% to 65% of the electorate.

That is not very good. That is not a very good statement. What it says is there's at least 35% to 40% of the electorate who have essentially given up on taking

part in democratic politics, who have given up on taking

part in democratic activity. That does not bode well for the future. Where you have jurisdictions and the voter turnout is tending to be 60%, 55%, 50% -- I look south of the border now, and it's not unusual to have voter turnouts of less than 50% in the United States -- that does not bode well for democracy. It does not give people the sense that they are involved in any real way in the decisions of their province, their state, their country.

What the member for Dovercourt is actually proposing is he's asking this House to have the courage to look at another system of government which would allow for more democracy. Yes, it would allow for the expression of more minority opinion. It might allow for the expression of more regional opinion. I come from a part of the province that has generally felt alienated from the province as a whole. In fact, about every 10 or 15 years in northern Ontario someone floats the idea that northern Ontario ought to form a separate province, and the reason that idea is floated and is taken seriously is that people feel that democracy in Ontario does not work as well as it should work.

I've heard particularly members of the government talk about this in terms of, "If 50% of the people in your constituency voted for you, then it must be okay." I think not. A real democracy not only looks at the representation of the majority; it looks at the representation of minorities; it looks at the representation of regional interests; it looks at the representation of the general diversity of the jurisdiction and the general diversity of the population. That is not happening now.

Over 70% of Ontario's land mass is inhabited by a majority population that is not represented here at all: first nations. I would say there is something wrong with our working of democracy if over 70% of the land mass of Ontario has as its majority inhabitants first nations and none of them is represented in this Legislature. There's obviously something askew here.

What the member for Dovercourt is actually asking for here I believe is that we have the courage to look at another form of representation which will provide for more democracy, which will provide for a greater representation of the uniqueness that we find in this province, of the diversity that we find in this province, both defined in terms of regional expression and in terms of the diversity of the population.

I would hope that some of the members opposite would put aside whatever their particular partisan interests might be. Since we are now engaged in this discussion about some kind of reform of this place, we ought to look at how we can further the interests of democracy, how we can create more democracy in this place and how we can achieve greater representation. For that reason, I'll be supporting this and I hope others will be supporting it as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Dovercourt like his two minutes?

Mr Silipo: I want to say I appreciate very much the comments from all members of the House who've spoken on this, although I also have to express my genuine surprise at the tone of the two speakers from the government side who spoke against the resolution.

I can certainly accept people not liking this resolution and being against it. I find it harder to accept the harshness and the kind of arrogance that I think was expressed, at least in some of the comments, because it says to me that there is very little appreciation of the fact that this is private members' hour and this is a time that we all have as members, regardless of being on the government side or on the opposition side, to put forward ideas through bills or resolutions to be looked at, hopefully, in a non-partisan way. I regret very much that at least the government members who decided to speak on this have very clearly chosen to see this as a partisan issue.

Yes, it's true, when I was a member of the NDP government we didn't enact legislation to do this. Fair criticism. I could also turn that around and say, "Why didn't they do it in the 42 years that they were the government?" That doesn't get us any farther ahead. Nor do we go any farther ahead by cutting up systems like the Italian system where people have been trying and I think have been finding progress through a hybrid of the systems that we have in place now which, interestingly enough, the members opposite chose to ignore. Would the new system that I am suggesting be more confusing to the electorate?

I don't think so, because I have more faith in the wisdom of the electorate than I think the member for Northumberland has.

In

summary, where the PR system has been used, it's been shown that in terms of gender equity and I think equity around all other areas, it is a more equitable system. People should look at it more seriously before saying no to it.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege.

The Deputy Speaker: If you have a point of privilege, you should let me know in advance.

Mr Murdoch: I'm sorry I didn't let you know in advance. I'll do it on a point of order then. It was going to be a point of privilege. Mr Speaker, I would just like to introduce the mayor of Dryden, Bill Salonen, who is sitting up there. I just wanted you to know that he is in the House.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the public galleries behind me is the former mayor of the city of Windsor, and probably the most popular former mayor of the city of Windsor, John Millson.

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal first with ballot item number 23, standing in the name of Mrs Caplan. If any members are opposed to voting on this ballot item, they will now please rise.

Mrs Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 41. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will vote on this after we have dealt with the other item.

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal now with ballot item 24, standing in the name of Mr Silipo. If any members are opposed to voting on this ballot item, they will now please rise.

Mr Silipo has moved private member's notice of motion number 14. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

There will be a five-minute bell. Please call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1209 to 1214.

PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES PATIENTS DE 1996

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 23, standing in the name of Mrs Caplan. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Fox, Gary

Parker, John L.

Baird, John R.

Froese, Tom

Pettit, Trevor

Barrett, Toby

Galt, Doug

Phillips, Gerry

Bartolucci, Rick

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Beaubien, Marcel

Gravelle, Michael

Ross, Lillian

Boushy, Dave

Hampton, Howard

Ruprecht, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Hastings, John

Sampson, Rob

Bradley, James J.

Hoy, Pat

Sergio, Mario

Brown, Jim

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Michael A.

Johnson, Ron

Sheehan, Frank

Caplan, Elinor

Laughren, Floyd

Silipo, Tony

Carroll, Jack

Leadston, Gary L.

Skarica, Toni

Castrilli, Annamarie

Martin, Tony

Smith, Bruce

Cordiano, Joseph

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stewart, R. Gary

Crozier, Bruce

Maves, Bart

Tilson, David

Curling, Alvin

McLeod, Lyn

Turnbull, David

Duncan, Dwight

Morin, Gilles E.

Wood, Bob

Fisher, Barbara

Murdoch, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the majority in favour of referring it to the standing committee?

Those in favour, please rise.

Those opposed, please rise.

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

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it should be noted that this vote originally was done unanimously.

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

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Silipo has moved ballot item number 24. Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution carry?

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Curling, Alvin

Morin, Gilles E.

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Murdoch, Bill

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Ruprecht, Tony

Castrilli, Annamarie

Hoy, Pat

Sergio, Mario

Cordiano, Joseph

Laughren, Floyd

Silipo, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Fox, Gary

Pettit, Trevor

Baird, John R.

Froese, Tom

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Galt, Doug

Ross, Lillian

Beaubien, Marcel

Gilchrist, Steve

Sampson, Rob

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Bradley, James J.

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Ron

Skarica, Toni

Brown, Michael A.

Leadston, Gary L.

Smith, Bruce

Carroll, Jack

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stewart, R. Gary

Duncan, Dwight

Maves, Bart

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Ford, Douglas B.

Parker, John L.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 17, the nays are 35.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just ask you to clarify the situation with the two separate votes, whether there are two five-minute bells or not. I see some members of the assembly left to go to a meeting after the one vote and some people left and some people didn't and from all sides of the House. I'm just wondering how that works.

The Deputy Speaker: The rules are that there will be one five-minute bell and that there will a pause in between to let those who wish leave.

It now being 12:23 o'clock, I declare this House adjourned till 1:30.

The House recessed from 1223 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Ten years ago, an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in northern Ukraine sent nine tonnes of radioactive debris across western Europe, permanently altering the lives of millions of innocent people.

It remains impossible to gauge the extent of damage done at Chernobyl or its potential effects upon future generations, but some things we know that are for certain. The Ukrainian ministry of health has produced alarming figures: 125,000 Chernobyl-related deaths. In Zhitomir Oblast, for example, the number of deaths of children suffering from oncological diseases -- that's cancer -- has doubled over the past year alone.

So the April 26, 1996, day marks the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion. It is not an occasion to celebrate, but it is a solemn reminder of an atrocious event which must not be forgotten. Chernobyl was a tragedy that must not be allowed to happen again. So there will be a candlelight ceremony right in front of this Legislature to mark this 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine.

It's the Children of Chernobyl Canadian Fund. The organizers are pleased to invite all members of this Legislature to attend. It will be tomorrow, April 26, at 7 pm in front of this Legislature. I only hope that many of our members will be able to attend this requiem service.

WALK AGAINST MALE VIOLENCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This year the Niagara region is the location for the walks against male violence. On Saturday, April 27, people from across the region will be walking against male violence from St Catharines to Vineland, leaving the Welland Avenue United Church at 11 am.

I'm especially proud, though, of the students who will be participating on Monday, April 29, in the students' walk against male violence. Young people like Chris Golden of Denistown Street, Kevin Thibault of Ontario Road and Ronald Tanguay of McAlpine Avenue, all of Welland and all from Welland Eastdale Secondary School, will be joining just hundreds and hundreds of other students participating in this walk against male violence, raising money and expressing a commitment to ending the violence by men against women.

Proceeds will be shared with the Niagara Regional Sexual Assault Centre. I am, as I said, proud of these young people. I shall look forward to joining them on Monday morning at 9 am as we leave Centennial school to walk to Merritt Island. I want to congratulate the organizers of this event. I want to express the pleasure that we feel in Niagara at being able to participate this year in a very direct way and I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of people across Ontario who have participated in these walks in solidarity against the unspeakable violence by men against women and with a commitment to ensuring that it ceases forever.

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): With the Ukraine consul general present, I rise to call the attention of all members of the House to the 10th anniversary of the world's largest and most tragic nuclear disaster, a disaster that occurred in Chernobyl, Ukraine.

On April 26, 1986, a computer accident involving Chernobyl nuclear reactor number 4 set in motion a blast that released many times the combined radioactivity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and elsewhere, impacting the lives of countless millions of people. In Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, an eyewitness had this to relate: "My friend who worked with me in the same building went out for lunch. As it was a nice day, she returned red-faced and we all thought she was blushing for some undisclosed reason. Today she is dead. We had no idea what was going on at the time."

The curse of Chernobyl has not ended. It has not ended for the thousands of children of the Chernobyl disaster who are condemned to a life of weakened health and thyroid disorders, including cancer. The threat of another thermal blast continues to loom as does the very real danger of radiation contamination in the drinking water of another 20 million people in the wake of this year's flooding.

At this time memorial services and candlelight marches are being conducted worldwide to help us remember what the victims of Chernobyl are not able to forget. I invite all members of the Legislature to join me in remembering and in supporting relief efforts at home and abroad to help the victims. The world has embraced the suffering children of Chernobyl and we can do no less in Ontario.

ONTARIO HOCKEY FEDERATION CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I proudly rise today to congratulate the South Point Local 459 Atom Majors on their division A Ontario Hockey Federation championship in Dundas recently.

The South Point Capitals from Wheatley and Leamington went undefeated with four wins and one tie in five games. They defeated Erindale 2-0 to clinch the championship. The game was the culmination of an unbelievable year of 64 wins, 11 losses and four ties, as well as several tournament championships throughout the season.

Congratulations go out to team members Matt Anthony, Adam Bosimier, Mark Epplett, Dan Dawson, Chris Bonham, David Penner, Justin Renner, Kerry Bowman, Adam Whittal, Lance Tofflemire, Kyle Ukrainyc, David Armstrong, James Keller, Andy Anthony and to their coach Kirk Bowman, assistant Paul Child, trainer Mike Epplett and manager Jennie Klym.

DOWNTOWN CHURCH COALITION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This morning clergy and laity of the newly formed Downtown Church Coalition in my riding of Fort York held a press conference here at Queen's Park. The purpose of the press conference was to present a petition to the Premier signed by over 1,600 members from 20 downtown churches who have united to improve the lives of the poor in their midst. The petition asked parishioners to support their appeal to the province to cancel the promised tax cuts and instead restore social service spending for the poor.

Those members involved in the Out of the Cold program and other drop-in programs have seen at first hand how government cuts to social services have increased the hardship of the poorest people in their communities. They have fed three times as many people this year as last year.

In the words of Reverend Jane Watanabe, priest at St James Cathedral: "If we see there's something wrong in society, we must speak out. The greatest burden of our government's deficit reduction is being borne by the poor, and that's unjust."

I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to the Downtown Church Coalition for their hard work, dedication and commitment to a cause that this government must, at some point, listen to.

LIONS CLUB OF BRIGHTON

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This week the Lions Club of Brighton is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Over the past 50 years, the Lions of Brighton have contributed their time and resources to the Brighton area and to its citizens, and they have worked hard to build a strong community and a strong sense of community.

The Lions were the driving force behind the building of the first community arena in 1947. They have sponsored many teams and individual athletes. Lions have made substantial donations to the Trenton Memorial Hospital in support of the building program and have helped purchase medical equipment.

The Lions have supported those less fortunate than themselves. They have purchased countless pairs of eyeglasses, provided dental care, purchased orthopaedic devices and wheelchairs and have provided a car for the VON for the past 15 years.

They have assisted families in paying their heating bills, organized annual Christmas food drives and have held annual Christmas parties for needy children.

Service clubs such as the Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis, Kinsmen, Optimists and their partners, to name a few, have contributed significantly to the building of Ontario and making Ontario what it is.

With this week being volunteer week, on behalf of the government of Ontario I extend a big thank you to all of the volunteer work by our service clubs. The Lions motto is "We Serve" and the Lions Club of Brighton has more than lived up to this pledge.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This Sunday working people around Ontario will pause and observe a day of mourning for our fellow citizens who have been injured or killed on the job.

More than 2,200 people have been killed on the job or died as a result of an occupational disease over the last eight years. Over that same period, more than three million claims have been registered with the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1995 there were 250 job-related deaths registered with the board; more than 375,000 claims were registered that year.

The cost to our economy of this human tragedy amounts to billions of dollars. More important, the cost to our friends and neighbours who are the victims and to their families is immeasurable.

Over the last 10 years, much progress has been made in reducing lost-time accidents, injuries and death. Unfortunately, the current government is pursuing a policy which will contribute to, and not reduce, the incidence of workplace injuries and fatalities. The government once again is being penny wise and pound foolish. Most regrettable, innocent working people, average citizens, middle-class taxpayers, will pay the price for this government's shortsighted, regressive workplace health and safety agenda.

INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The Independent Order of Foresters is one of the oldest and largest fraternal organizations in the world, with more than one million members in Canada, the United States and Great Britain.

Although the Independent Order of Foresters actually began in Newark, New Jersey, in 1874, its first Canadian court, Court Hope 0001, was instituted on April 26, 1876, in London, Ontario, and London was the site of the first Canadian headquarters from 1881 to 1888.

The Independent Order of Foresters offers many community services and has been an important part of our community for all of those years, and we celebrate with them their 120th anniversary.

The Independent Order of Foresters offers, as a community service, free fingerprinting services to assist the police if a child goes missing. They fingerprinted over one million children in the Niagara region alone last fall.

Court Hope 0001 has also contributed to such things as the Florence Hallum prevention of child abuse fund, which has given over $45,000 to the child abuse movement. They also work with the Children's Hospital, the Reye's syndrome association, the sexual assault centre, the multiple sclerosis centre and virtually every other of our community-based groups.

On behalf of the citizens of London, Ontario, I congratulate the Independent Order of Foresters, Court Hope 0001.

ST JOSEPH SCHOOL

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): On behalf of the member for Mississauga North and myself, I would like to welcome to the public gallery 28 grade 8 students from St Joseph school in Mississauga.

In December, along with 36 other schools, this class entered a contest entitled Why I Love Canada. The students, under the guidance of their teacher, put together a 15-piece bristol board display, produced a video, and wrote poems and essays in both official languages. This class finished second in this contest, and since that time their efforts have been featured on CITY-TV, YTV and CTV, as well as numerous print media outlets.

These students showed how proud they are to be Canadian, how much they love our country and how much they want to keep it united. Now they have the opportunity to share those feelings with other Canadians as the exhibit the students have put together is now travelling and being displayed in Ottawa and Quebec City.

On behalf of the Legislature, I wish to congratulate the students on a job well done. I encourage all members to stop and view the display when it is at the CNE this summer.

When I look up at the public gallery today, I see a bright future for Canada.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FINANCING

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to announce today that this government is taking measures to respond to the concerns raised by small school boards regarding the total impact of the general legislative grant regulations.

On March 6, I announced that grants to school boards would be adjusted to achieve savings in out-of-classroom expenditures. Since then, my colleagues and I have had ongoing discussions with many trustees and staff from a number of small boards. They expressed concern that they have less flexibility in their operations than larger school boards and therefore less capacity to accommodate the required grant reductions. We have listened carefully to their concerns and have considered a wide range of options to help them.

What I'm announcing today will help mitigate the financial impacts on small school boar