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

December 6, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LITHOTRIPTERS

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

DORA DE PÉDERY-HUNT

DOCTORS’ FEES

LEANNE CAPUTO

WATER QUALITY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

WASHROOM FACILITIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE PURSUITS

LONG-TERM CARE / SERVICES DE SOIN À LONG TERME

RESPONSES

POLICE PURSUITS

LONG-TERM CARE

POLICE PURSUITS

LONG-TERM CARE

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD INDUSTRY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

POLICE PURSUITS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TOURISM INDUSTRY

POLICE LEGISLATION

BEEF INDUSTRY

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

FOOD PROMOTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PETITIONS

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS FACILITY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call for members’ statements, I would like to advise members that we have in the lower east gallery Donald Baxter, who was a member of this Legislature from the Prince Edward-Lennox area about four decades ago. Welcome.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LITHOTRIPTERS

Mr Allen: Hamiltonians, like all Ontarians outside Metro Toronto, have to go elsewhere for kidney stone treatment with a lithotripter, an ultrasonic device that breaks up stones without surgery, even though there has been a lithotripter sitting idle in a warehouse in Hamilton for months.

With long waiting lists at Ontario’s only lithotripsy service in Toronto, OHIP pays almost double for patients sent to other centres like Buffalo. Earlier this year, two Hamilton specialists purchased a lithotripter to service the west-central area only to be halted by a ministry ruling that it would approve only one machine for the southwest and would state where it would be, whether in Hamilton or in London.

The deadline for submissions was 28 July. Since then, silence. What is the minister waiting for? Right now the Americans have an oversupply of lithotripters; we are in short supply, but the minister seems afflicted with an oversupply of caution.

The two Hamilton doctors have offered her a further option, a mobile service that could serve various points south and west of Metro, with equal access based on need. Over 5,000 kidney stone patients in Ontario annually can benefit from lithotripsy. Toronto can only serve about 1,100 patients comfortably.

When is the minister going to authorize not just one but three more lithotripters for the province? With the US market in oversupply, it should be possible to pick up the machines at a reduced price. Hamiltonians have nothing against Buffalo, but it makes no sense to inconvenience the ill at double the cost.

LENGTHS OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS

Mr Jackson: I rise to comment on yet another broken Liberal election promise. The recent announcement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) to allow an increase in the length of trucks and tractor-trailers to 53 feet seriously contradicts the government’s stated intentions for highway safety. The minister has failed to listen to the Canadian Automobile Association, which told him about how longer trucks endanger and intimidate motorists.

Burlington motorists are telling me that they feel betrayed by this Liberal government’s announcement. Burlington motorists are saying this will only increase the rate of traffic accidents and fatalities on our highways by increasing the risk of what is known as vehicle underride during rear-end collisions.

This will result in increased traffic snarls and slowdowns, which they contend with on a daily basis. This means greater carbon monoxide emissions into the air as well as larger fuel consumption and this will result in increased road maintenance costs.

Longer trucks do not mean fewer trucks in Ontario; they mean more problems and greater risks.

Five new taxes were specifically imposed on motorists by the recent Liberal budget. Burlingtonians also pay the greater-Toronto-area tax grab. In return, those same motorists are having their personal safety compromised by this government.

Enhanced safety on our roadways can surely be the minimum that motorists can expect from the Minister of Transportation. What has happened instead is that this Liberal government’s handling of highway safety is now, like its taxation practices, out of control.

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

Miss Nicholas: Earlier this session the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) informed members of the Legislature about the 67th anniversary of Fire Prevention Week in Ontario.

Each year Fire Prevention Week provides the opportunity to formally recognize those who demonstrate outstanding achievement in fire prevention and fire safety.

This year eight awards have been given out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. In the organization category this year’s winners are the Ottawa Fire Department, the Whitby Fire Department, the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education and the Lambton Shrine Club.

Representing these organizations are: Robert Crothers, chief inspector of the Ottawa Fire Prevention Bureau; Chief Ed Crouch, Whitby Fire Department; Dianne Phillips, curriculum consultant, Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education; Donald Burnard, chairman of public relations for the Lambton Shrine Club.

Awards for individual achievement have been presented to Connie Chudyk of the Hamilton Fire Department and David Guilbault of the Ottawa Fire Department.

Our youth award winners this year are David Timeriski and Hillory Vance, both of Elliot Lake.

I have been informed that these recipients are present in the members’ gallery and I know that all members will want to extend their appreciation to each of these distinguished recipients.

DORA DE PÉDERY-HUNT

Mr Philip: Since the Legislature will not be in session in January, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House and the members of the public who are watching of an important artistic event which will occur.

Starting in 1990, all of Canada’s coins will bear a new effigy of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. With pride, I would like to point out that the new effigy, which was recently approved by Buckingham Palace, is the first ever designed by a Canadian for use on Canadian coins.

The effigy was designed by an Ontario artist and sculptor, Hungarian-born Dora de Pédery-Hunt. Dora de Pédiery-Hunt immigrated from Hungary in 1948. It is safe to say that before Dora de Pédery-Hunt arrived in Canada commemorative medals were very conventional. She can be credited with playing a major role in transforming this situation.

The quality of her work is such that it has merited being acquired by major museums and galleries in North America and Europe. Dora de Pédery-Hunt’s genius lies in the fact that she can achieve a true likeness of her subject while at the same time capturing his or her character.

Next year, when we look at the new coins, we can be grateful that this gracious and talented artist chose Canada as her home. I ask all members to join with me and members of the Hungarian-Canadian community in saying how proud we are of our Canadian artist, sculptor and medallist, Dora de Pédery-Hunt.

DOCTORS’ FEES

Mr J. M. Johnson: Dr Peter Vaughan, president of the Wellington County Medical Society, has asked me as its representative to bring to the attention of this Legislature some very serious concerns the association has with this Liberal government. I will quote from Dr Vaughan’s letter:

“Dear Mr Johnson:

“The membership of the Wellington County Medical Society has asked that I write you to express our extreme frustration with the lack of meaningful progress on the part of the provincial government in its negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association in developing a mechanism to replace the joint committee on physician compensation.

“The JCPC expired 18 months ago in April 1988. At that time the government cut off discussions with our representatives and unilaterally awarded a 1.75 per cent increase in the OHIP

schedule of Benefits.”

Dr Vaughan goes on to state that the government’s attitude has severely affected the morale of physicians and that, while it may still be trendy to doctor-bash, the future of quality health care is at stake.

Wellington county is not alone. Most, if not all, of the province is suffering from this government’s inability to deal with the health crisis. Surely it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to develop and maintain a co-operative working relationship with the medical profession for the benefit of all Ontarians.

LEANNE CAPUTO

Mr Elliot: I would like to congratulate Leanne Caputo, who is sitting in the members’ gallery, on being declared first runner-up in the recent Miss World pageant held in Hong Kong. Miss Caputo was tied for the title of Miss World on the first ballot and was declared first runner-up during a second vote held to break the tie. She also received the title Queen of the Americas, the first time any Canadian has received this recognition at the Miss World pageant.

Leanne’s success in Hong Kong came after she had been named Miss World Canada at the national competition, which was held in Winnipeg during October. Leanne is a hardworking dancer and model from the town of Milton in my riding of Halton North where she owns and operates her own business, the Dance Gallery, which teaches jazz, tap and ballet. She is a graduate of the Milton District High School and is currently studying at the Toronto Dance Theatre.

During the next year Leanne will be involved in numerous public engagements in Ontario and the rest of Canada. I am sure that wherever she goes Leanne will prove to be an excellent ambassador for the town of Milton and the province of Ontario. I would like to give her the best wishes as she goes about her duties.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Grier: It seems that every couple of weeks we hear of yet another community where residents are receiving bottled drinking water because their own wells are contaminated. Every time this happens it represents a failure of our environmental protection system, a failure to have tough enough regulations and tough enough enforcement to prevent environmental problems from occurring, a failure to recognize the extent and the seriousness of the problem when local residents first complain and, finally, a failure, when the problem is acknowledged, to clean up the issue.

In Ameliasburgh in Prince Edward county, 20 area residents have been receiving bottled water for over a year. The Ministry of the Environment agrees that between 1971 and 1976 Blackbird Holdings buried barrels containing toxic waste.

The barrels are still there and that waste is now leaking and contaminating wells and ground water.

In March 1989 the ministry ordered Blackbird Holdings to clean up the site, but the owner says be cannot afford to. So nothing has been done and red tape at the ministry means that the situation remains as it has been. The barrels are still there, they are still leaking and residents are worried about the health and genetic effects of the contamination. Surely the government can do better than that.

I call on the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) to look into this appalling situation and find a way to clean up the mess now. Let’s not wait any longer.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr Harris: Last week the Minister of Housing (Mr Sweeney), at a meeting with developers and municipal officials in Guelph, promised that government land would be sold cheaply to provide affordable housing. That will be a change.

This promise sounds vaguely familiar. The minister made similar grandiose statements at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference back in August. In fact he stated, “I certainly intend to ask the federal government to free up some of its land, but in my judgement, the government of Ontario has to free up its land first and show by example.” Despite this comment, there have been no provincial announcements.

Meanwhile, on 13 October the federal Minister of State (Housing), Alan Redway, released 43 hectares -- 106 acres -- in Vaughan and 2,500 homes are planned for the site. There is a minister who cares and has the co-operation of his cabinet colleagues. Since we have not heard from Mr Redway’s provincial counterpart, my colleague the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) asked the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward) to indicate surplus lands that would be sold for affordable housing. The minister responded, “Five sites are to be released next year -- 588 units on 29 acres in Stoney Creek, Newcastle, Peterborough, Toronto and Windsor.”

At face value it sounds okay, but a closer look reveals the Toronto and Stoney Creek sites were originally announced in April and May 1988. If we factor those out, the Ministry of Government Services is left with 169 units that this government is going to lead the way on. Headlines and rhetoric will not solve Ontario’s affordable housing problem.

WASHROOM FACILITIES

Ms Oddie Munro: Current practice in the construction industry in relation to provision of toilet and washroom facilities is outdated. Privies and chemical flush toilets, for example, are often unsanitary and facilities for workers to wash their hands -- ie, hot and cold running water and basins -- are largely nonexistent. Provision of toilet and washroom facilities should not be left to the collective agreement process, such regulations being more appropriately reflected in the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, sections 89 and 90, governing all workers, unionized and unorganized.

Appropriate requirements must be practical and workable. The issue of sanitary and washroom facilities has been a recurring resolution submitted to the annual meetings of the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council. Submitted and adopted in both 1988 and 1989, the resolution was forwarded to and adopted by the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. It has also been submitted to and discussed at the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee.

The construction sector is the largest employment sector in this province. Minimum requirements for flush toilets and running water on all construction projects for all construction workers is overdue. Amendments will result in improved worksite conditions. Improved worksite conditions are positively related to improved productivity, making good economic as well as social sense. I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) to support the emerging regulatory procedures amendments.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE PURSUITS

Hon Mr Offer: I wish to inform the members of the House that today I have issued to all Ontario police forces a province-wide directive to regulate and manage police pursuits. This directive will address what has been a difficult and long-standing issue -- the need to strike a balance between the public safety in initiating or continuing a pursuit, against the public safety in not initiating or continuing a pursuit.

Before issuing this directive, my ministry has taken into consideration the publicly expressed views of our citizens as well as the views of the men and women of our policing services. In the process of our deliberations we have considered and weighed a full range of options. One option was an outright ban on police pursuits.

This government has taken the position that a complete ban is not acceptable since it would only encourage criminals to flee from the police. Police pursuits are a necessary and important part of policing. While it is impossible to totally eliminate the risks involved in police pursuits, it is possible to ensure that pursuits are undertaken only when absolutely necessary and that they are conducted in a manner which maximizes public safety and are in accordance with the law.

To accomplish this objective, my ministry has developed a strategy which includes enhanced pursuit training, public education, increased Highway Traffic Act penalties, Police Act regulations and immediate implementation of clear and consistent standards set out in the directive for the management of police pursuits.

The directive which I have issued today states that public safety must be the paramount consideration in any decision to initiate, continue or discontinue a police pursuit. The directive also states that police pursuits will be a measure of last resort. Pursuits may be initiated when police have reason to believe that a criminal offence has been or is about to be committed. They may be undertaken in noncriminal situations only for the purpose of identifying the vehicle, at which point the pursuit must then be discontinued. As well, the directive expands the responsibility for management and control of pursuits beyond the individual pursuing officer to his or her immediate supervisor.

The directive also prohibits police use of firearms for the sole purpose of attempting to stop a vehicle and prohibits deliberate ramming of a police vehicle into a pursued vehicle. It requires that all police forces submit reports on all police pursuits in Ontario for review by the Office of the Solicitor General and requires that, effective 1 January 1991, no police officer may engage in a pursuit unless he or she has been trained in a course on pursuits which has been approved by the Ontario Police College.

This directive will be accompanied by public education messages in drivers’ handbooks aimed at new drivers and a pamphlet for public distribution warning of the need to stop for police and the dangers of pursuit.

However, education alone is not sufficient to ensure the safety of police officers and the public. We must make it clear that disregarding a police request to stop which leads to a pursuit is a very serious offence. Currently, the Highway Traffic Act penalty for failure to stop is a minimum fine of $100 to a maximum of $2,000. Following consultation with the Attorney General (Mr Scott) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye), it is this government’s intention to increase the fine for this offence from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $5,000. The existing mandatory three-year suspension of a driving licence for conviction will remain in force.

My ministry has required that the directive announced today be followed by all police forces in Ontario, effective immediately. As well, it is this government’s intention to implement this directive as a regulation in the revised Police Act which will be introduced to this House in the very near future. Ontario will then become the first province in Canada with laws which regulate police pursuits.

The initiatives announced today recognize and support the common goal of this government, the police and the citizens of our province to increase public safety and security in our communities.

LONG-TERM CARE / SERVICES DE SOIN À LONG TERME

Hon Mr Beer: On behalf of myself and my colleagues the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morn), I am pleased to provide a progress report on the comprehensive reform of long-term care.

As members will recall, long-term care refers to the personal health and social services delivered over an extended period of time to people who are elderly or have physical disabilities.

Le 7 juin dernier, mon prédécesseur avait annoncé que nous allions entreprendre notre programme de réformes en nous fondant sur ce principe. Ces réformes visent à aider les personnes âgées et celles qui sont atteintes d’un handicap physique à poursuivre une existence autonome. Elles visent aussi à soutenir les proches qui s’occupent de ces personnes et à renforcer les moyens, dont disposent les communautés, pour planifier et administrer les services qui leur sont offerts.

Cette approche est d’ailleurs conforme à ce que préconise le Conseil du premier ministre sur la santé qui recommande, lui aussi, l’amélioration du réseau d’appui au niveau des communautés et une meilleure coordination entre les services de santé et les services sociaux.

Depuis la déclaration de juin dernier, nous avons parlé aux gens qui font appel à nos services et à ceux qui les fournissent dans certaines communautés de l’Ontario. Nous avons discuté de notre orientation avec les représentants de plusieurs organisations provinciales et nous avons effectué un examen interne, en vue de nous assurer que ces plans seront à la fois viables et efficaces.

We have found that there is real support for reform among our clients, their families and service providers, and an eagerness to take

part in the reform process. We have heard, particularly from those with disabilities, that people want to maintain their independence and have more control over the services they require.

Today, I am pleased to be able to make some firm commitments to you, Mr Speaker, this House and the people of Ontario.

First, we will create new service access agencies that will simplify both the process of finding appropriate in-home services and the process of having someone admitted to a long-term care facility. Through these agencies, people will be able to find the help they need in one place, talking to one person, instead of going through a long, trying period of searching.

Second, we will introduce a new funding system for all homes for the aged and nursing homes. Under the new system, payments will vary, depending on the level of care required by residents in the home.

Third, to avoid administrative confusion and duplication, the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services are establishing a single interministry structure to manage the reformed long-term care system, both provincially and at the local level. Already we have appointed an assistant deputy minister of community services who reports jointly to my ministry and the Ministry of Health.

Fourth, we will develop a fully integrated in-home support program for seniors and disabled people. This new program will provide a wide array of services to assist people to be independent in their homes.

Existing services, such as the Ministry of Health’s home care program and my ministry’s integrated homemaker program, will be brought together as the core of a new consolidated in-home support program. As a result, services will be available with fewer barriers between agencies, ministries and professions.

We shall increase provincial support for many in-home services such as attendant care, in-home respite and in-home nursing care. There will also be further improvements and support for the lowest-paid workers to add to the $28.9 million we have already provided to improve the wages of homemakers.

Finally, home support services run by community agencies, such as Meals on Wheels and Friendly Visiting, will be expanded. We will develop a more complete range of services throughout the province, looking towards greater multicultural involvement.

We will be ready to begin implementing changes in some communities by early fall of 1990. We are also preparing long-term-care legislation for presentation to the House at that same time.

There is still much to be done, but working with our partners in the community, we are determined to put in place a coherent and carefully designed system of long-term care for senior citizens and people with disabilities throughout Ontario.

To achieve this goal, it is vital that those involved in reform should have input: consumers, providers and communities. In implementing reform, we will also work closely with municipalities, continuing the co-operation already established by the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee.

At present we are working on a detailed strategic plan. We plan to release this document early next spring, and its release will signal the beginning of intensive provincial and local consultation and planning. Some aspects of the consultation process can, however, start immediately. Within the next few weeks we will establish committees made up of government, service providers and consumers, to help us establish detailed policies in four key areas.

These four areas are: A new classification system to aid us in making funding decisions for nursing homes and homes for the aged; the design of the new community service access agencies, which I mentioned earlier; the guidelines for new community and in-home service, and the role of chronic care facilities within the reformed long-term care system.

We recognize that we are starting down a long and, no doubt, sometimes bumpy road. Reform of such scope will not be easy, but the result will be a much improved system of long-term care. It will support and strengthen opportunities for community living so that senior citizens and people with disabilities will be better able to remain in their homes and communities, close to family and friends. Above all, reform will ensure the dignity of our citizens who require support.

RESPONSES

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Kormos: Speaking to the statement made by the Solicitor General, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that is a far cry from the tough new restrictions that were promised by his predecessor, the then Solicitor General, the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith). Indeed, this does little but fluff up and put some smoke and mirrors around what exists now, which is virtually no guidelines, no directions.

As far back as 1985, the MacBeth report was available to the Solicitor General and it provided a number of standards that ought to be implemented. This directive that we are told of today does not incorporate any of those standards advised by the MacBeth commission. What is entirely lacking here is any use of technology that might be made available to police officers, both municipal and OPP officers, to give effect to pursuits that would not involve high-speed chases. I am speaking of spike belts, and there is no mention in this report or this narrative of using spike belts.

I am speaking of the use of technology that is available to police officers in the 1980s and certainly in the 1990s that would give effect to pursuits without the need to engage in high-speed chases.

I have some concerns as well about the modest standards imposed, one, that a pursuit only be engaged in when it involves the commission of a criminal offence. What standard, what height, what level, how trivial a criminal offence? Indeed, we are aware of the police chase that left three officers injured and left behind a trail of about $50,000 in wrecked cars because of the mere theft of $15 in gas in September. That is the very type of situation in which real direction has to be provided, where the discretion of the police officer cannot be the prevailing standard for whether or not to engage in a chase.

It is the sort of standard that is called out for and that is not provided in this new directive.

As I say, it is a far cry from the Police Act that we expected, a far cry from the tough new restrictions that the previous Solicitor General promised.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr B. Rae: I want to say to the Minister of Community and Social Services that this statement is interesting to listen to, just as the statement was interesting to listen to when it was made by Frank Drea back in 1982. I can also tell the minister that he has ignored some of the most difficult problems that we face in the province.

First of all, the administrative chaos between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services is not solved at all by simply having an assistant deputy minister who reports to two ministers.

Second, the most difficult issue that we have raised in this House in terms of the regulation of homes, the question of the regulation of homes that are supposed to be covered by municipal laws, all those people who are institutionalized who are not covered right now by any provincial standards whatsoever, has been completely and utterly ignored by the government, and the minister has said absolutely nothing about it in his statement.

He has said nothing at all about the question of the financial accountability and the performance accountability of the homes that are providing care for people, whether they are homes for the aged, whether they are nursing homes or whether they are all those homes in which tens of thousands of people are living which are covered by absolutely no regulation whatsoever other than the most minimal municipal standards.

I can say to the minister that in my work in this province, there has been no issue that has been so long neglected by government and by society as this question of our care for the elderly. In fact, it was nearly eight years ago that I gave my first speech in this House on the subject of the treatment of senior citizens in Ontario’s nursing homes.

I do not take any great satisfaction in saying that the pace at which the government is moving is positively glacial. What does it say about a Liberal government when the very best thing it can say in the fifth year of its administration is that we will have to wait for the sixth year of its administration before we even see a draft piece of legislation dealing with the question of the care for the elderly? That speaks of a neglect of our older people, a neglect of citizens living in poverty and living in very difficult conditions that is a disgrace.

This is a regime for the rich and for the wealthy and for the well protected. It is not a government for those who are looking to a government that cares. It is a government for people who are well off and who are well protected. It speaks to two Ontarios and not to one Ontario, and I do not think what the minister has proposed comes even close to dealing with the crisis that is affecting our old people today.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Runciman: I want to respond to the statement by the Solicitor General. I am not going to pass judgement on the merits of the statement. Unlike the government, we would wish to consult with the police forces and individual police officers across this province before we make a significant comment on this statement. I think, regrettably, the minister has not carried out that kind of consultative process.

I will comment today in respect to a number of concerns that jump out of this statement. In regard to the comments in respect to further prohibitions on the use of firearms, there is no reference in here to the provision of appropriate resources for the training of police officers, no reference to the recent Supreme Court decision requiring police officers in chase situations to stop at intersections and stop signs, etc.

I think our concern on this side of the House, as I mentioned in reference to consultation, is a growing perception of an antipolice bias creeping into the Liberal government policy.

I can quote some statistics in respect to violent crimes being on the increase: sexual assaults, robbery and theft in Toronto between 1984 and 1988. Attempted murders rose by 35 per cent, sexual assaults by 38 per cent, other assaults by 68 per cent, robberies by 43 per cent, weapons possession by 33 per cent. The reality is that police are faced with more criminal acts to deal with than ever before, and behind each of these statistics is a human being. In Toronto, we have as many as 40 street gangs operating, young people not afraid to commit vicious crimes. We have a drug abuse epidemic in this province.

What kind of support is this government giving the police forces across this province? The Attorney General (Mr Scott) rebukes two police officers who criticize the courts for handing out one- and two-week sentences to drug pushers. That is the kind of support. We have two cabinet ministers of this government attending the funeral of an individual who was shot in a stolen car. What happens when we have police officers wounded or killed in the line of duty in this province? Not one word of condolence, not one word of sympathy, not one word of support from this Liberal government.

I met with officers of 52 Division in downtown Toronto last night. They are very concerned about morale. They are out in the streets dealing with this situation on a day-by-day basis, and they are very concerned. There is no one speaking up, no one standing up on their behalf in the Liberal government of Ontario. We may be faced with a work slowdown in Metropolitan Toronto by the police because of their concerns about what is happening, what this government is doing to them.

I want to say that we are concerned about the initiatives this government has undertaken which in effect are going to handicap the ability of our police officers to fight crime and will ultimately damage public safety across this province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Cunningham: In response to the comprehensive reform of long-term care in the province, I really hope that this announcement is just what it says it is, “to be able to make some firm commitments to you, Mr Speaker, this House and the people of Ontario,” with regard to the long-term care for the elderly and for the disabled in the community.

When we look at simplifying the process and finding appropriate in-home services, that is fine, but what we really need for this ageing population and for our increased number of seniors and the elderly from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) are more services, and I hope that this is what this means.

We need more attendant care. We need more hours per staff, in-home care on behalf of homemakers. We need to be able to look at our institutions, our homes for the aged, our nursing homes. We need to refurbish them. We need to update them. People are prepared to pay if this government is prepared to manage, and we need better management. That is what this is all about. Seniors need more privacy in their institutions. They are telling us this. They need more individual attention. They really are telling us that personal attendants for the disabled are their prime objective. That is what they have been asking for.

The real needs in nursing homes, as I take a look at this new funding system for all homes for the aged and nursing homes, what I really hope the minister means there is that we are looking at improving the funding and services for the homes for the aged as well as bringing the nursing homes up to that level. I think it is a real crime that we have been facing some lawsuit that has finally forced the minister into saying “a new funding system.” I hope that in spite of any legal suits, the minister will be looking at the needs of individuals in our special homes for senior citizens.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier as the chairman of the Premier’s Council. I think Ontario has just begun to get a sense of how major the changes that we are undergoing in our economy are in terms of the car industry, in terms of food processing. The job losses and the rate of change is becoming quite scary for people, and it is interesting to note that the Premier’s Council has talked about these issues.

In fact, the Premier’s Council said a little while ago in regard to the food processing industry that the changes that are taking place could spell disaster for some segments of the industry. So one cannot say that the Premier did not predict these changes and predict these problems. What one has to say is that the Premier has done nothing to address the problems he has described in his Premier’s Council reports.

Can the Premier tell me why he has done nothing to address the issues which have been described in his own reports and which workers today are experiencing in their own daily lives?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is incorrect, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food will tell him what we are doing with the agriculture and food processing industries.

The Speaker: Referred to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon Mr Ramsay: We are obviously, and especially in Agriculture and Food, aware of the rationalization that is going on in the food processing industry. We have seen this happen in the last five years in the United States and we are beginning to see it here in Canada, and yes, it is the free trade deal that has acted as a catalyst to this rationalization.

We are doing something about it. We have a Food Industry Advisory Committee that my fellow member the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) has chaired with me. We have recommendations from the food industry. We are actively giving consideration to those and preparing some action in regard to that report.

Mr B. Rae: There is nothing at all in place in terms of programs for the workers who are affected by these changes. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food, since he has been given the question by the Premier, can explain why the government would be saying what a wonderful severance package it has for workers when in fact 63 per cent of working women have held their jobs for less than five years, so that they are not protected under any severance legislation at all.

Perhaps he can tell us what he is going to do about older workers whose average unemployment will now last some 23 weeks and who are going to be affected by change in all the industries that are affected, whether it is the car industry or the food processing industry. Why are there no programs in place to deal with the level and degree of change that is now coming to Ontario? There is nothing there.

Hon Mr Ramsay: The processes we have in place are designed to manage the change and the change is coming very fast because of free trade. We think it is very important that we get some financial help, as we had from the federal government with the tobacco and grape industries. We have asked the federal government for those adjustment programs and they are not there. They sold this country on free trade because they said adjustment programs would be there. The federal government has not been there when we need it, now, today.

Mr B. Rae: The minister is an expert on selling people things, but I would like to ask the minister, by way of final supplementary, if he can tell us, and answer my question specifically, why is it that the government severance package does not cover women, 63 per cent of whom have held their jobs for less than five years? It does not cover them. If he wants to talk about food processing, he knows to what extent women occupy those jobs in many industries across the province. Why are they not covered by this legislation? Why are there no training packages in place?

Why is there no pension legislation in place when we are undergoing such incredible change? The minister has seen this change coming. We have all seen it coming. The Ontario government has done nothing to --

The Speaker: Thank you. There are about four questions there.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I think the member should be asking the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) when it comes to severance packages and the Minister of Labour would be quite happy to discuss that. He asked about the food processing industry and I must say that what he is really talking about is the change that is happening very rapidly because of free trade. I must say it was our Premier and our party in the last election that was fighting free trade. It was our party that was leading that fight to stop this deal.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the Minister of the Environment a question. I want to ask the minister this question. Last 10 March the minister announced that by 1992 Ontario would divert 25 per cent of its garbage from landfill and from incineration. As a result of the recycling programs that are now in place, the blue box program and others, we have reached roughly three per cent and 1992 is a little more than two years away.

I wonder if the minister can explain in simple terms that all of us can understand how the government intends to reduce the amount of garbage produced and sent to landfill and incineration eightfold in a little over two years. Can he explain that to me?

Hon Mr Bradley: They have little faith over there on that side. I could probably explain it to him. I could suggest some things such as the number of -- no, I will not get into those things.

Some hon members: Go ahead.

Hon Mr Bradley: No. The member for Oshawa (Mr Breaugh) wants me to, but I will not.

We see first of all a wide expansion of the blue box program in Ontario. He will be aware that Ontario won the United Nations’ award for the blue box program on recycling. As a person who uses the blue box and promotes recycling, I think the member can take some of that credit, as can all the people who have used the blue box.

What we are seeing is that in the communities that are participating, the number of households that are now participating in the blue box program is, I think, about 1.8 million households in Ontario. In addition to that, the member would know that many communities are moving into a composting program, either individually within their own homes or as municipalities that are beginning to have compost heaps the whole community can use, to cut down on the amount of material that otherwise would go to an incinerator or a landfill site.

In addition to that, the government of Ontario has made a contribution --

The Speaker: Thank you. You might save a little for the supplementary.

Mr B. Rae: I cannot believe the minister is seriously arguing that a combination of composting and expanding the blue box program is going to get us to 25 per cent. If that is what he is arguing, then I think he is just whistling in the wind.

The minister has a staff now of 2,941 people, of whom a total of 13 are employed in something called the waste diversion

section that was formerly the waste reduction section. They changed the name and they have 13 staff out of a total of 2,941. Can the minister tell us how 0.4 per cent of his ministry staff are going to increase the amount of waste reduction eightfold in the next two years? How can they do that?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member would surely know, but that is perhaps philosophical as some of my colleagues would say -- I do not always have the same philosophical arguments with the member as some of my colleagues do -- that the only solution to waste management in terms of the reduction program is not to hire civil servants, although we believe the people we have there are an excellent team. They have working with them people all over Ontario, in the municipalities and in groups such as the Recycling Council of Ontario.

Indeed, there are even corporations -- I know the member has trouble with those people -- that are looking at ways now to cut back on the material that would go to either incineration or the landfill sites. The reason for it is that the costs are increasing tremendously for them, and so out of necessity that has forced them to look at many of these things.

I was in Brampton the other day and I was involved in a wood recycling program -- this is what the member asked about -- cutting the ribbon and commending the local people in the area for being involved in something that is pretty innovative. In addition to that, people are now recycling cardboard. Remember the cardboard boxes they used to have that used to be thrown out? They are now recycled.

Mrs Grier: The kinds of activities the minister has been describing have been going on now on a voluntary basis for at least the time he has been in office and many of them for long before that. Surely the minister is prepared to recognize that with all the goodwill in the world, those kinds of voluntary efforts are not going to take him to the target he is so confidently announcing, to cut the garbage by 25 per cent two years from now. The minister, I am sure, will remember one of the documents his ministry helped fund, the solid waste environmental assessment plan report for Metropolitan Toronto. I want to ask him about a very specific recommendation in that report.

The recommendation was “that Environment Ontario should establish a waste reduction office that has a statutory mandate and obligation to produce and implement a comprehensive strategy for the province that will achieve a 50 per cent reduction of solid waste during the next decade. To do so, the waste reduction office must be given a budget and staff sufficient to the task, one that reflects the primacy of the waste reduction objective.”

Why does the minister consistently duck that kind of tough recommendation?

Hon Mr Bradley: I do not know if I can speak for all the members of the New Democratic Party -- I probably cannot reasonably speak for any of them -- but I can say that it may be the philosophy of the New Democratic Party to use a sledgehammer to force people in this province to do something they are already doing voluntarily. Can anyone in this House think of another program in Ontario where so many people are making a special effort to participate in recycling, where we have 1.8 million households and close to 200 municipalities involved, where there is growing action within the schools where people are recycling -- so many programs that are going on right across Ontario?

We have the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward) announcing a program that is going to reduce the amount of waste in terms of paper and other things the government produces. There are all of these activities going on, the funding of the three Rs, industrial recycling at the present time. There are a myriad of activities going on in this province and people are coming from all over the world to see what we are doing in Ontario in the field of recycling.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I am sure the minister is aware that Ontario Hydro is advertising, that people are being asked to turn back their heat in their homes, that industry is being cut back in many areas of the province and that Ontario Hydro is projecting brownouts in terms of the provision of power across the province as a real possibility. This all results, I understand, because of unit 2 at Pickering being shut down on scheduled maintenance and the Lennox generating plant possibly running out of fuel.

I wonder if the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro could tell us what she is doing to ensure that residential users, business and industry do not experience blackouts.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think we should first clarify that I do not think Ontario Hydro is at the present time making dire predictions about sustained shortages of electricity. There is an unexpected peak at this point in time with the cold weather and with the increase in electricity usage that normally comes at this season.

As the member has recognized, there are a number of situations: planned outages at the Pickering station, an unplanned problem with the transmission line that reduced the electricity available yesterday by some 1,500 megawatts, and as well the Lennox station had to be used for peaking capacity and there is concern about being able to have oil shipments quickly enough to keep the Lennox station operating through this peak period. This is a temporary request to customers to cut back during peak periods so that this very temporary shortage can be met.

I am sure the honourable member, in a supplementary, will want me to come back to the question of the longer-term planning to meet the electricity demands of Ontario, which Ontario Hydro and the ministry are very much involved in.

Mr Runciman: I would not guess at what my supplementary is going to be. I want to say to the minister that by that response obviously she is not concerned about this situation. She is simply being a puppet of Ontario Hydro. The minister said December is a peak period for use of hydro. If indeed December is a peak period and I admit it is, will the minister justify why they scheduled a shutdown of Pickering during a peak period and why Lennox is almost out of fuel oil? Is the minister satisfied with this degree of incompetence by management at Ontario Hydro? Is that what she is telling the consumers of Ontario?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Indeed no. I do not think there is any measure of incompetence in the planning of Ontario Hydro. There was an unexpected occurrence on a transmission line that affected 1,500 megawatts of available power in the short term. I think Ontario Hydro is anticipating a concern about shortages over this peak period in asking customers to voluntarily reduce their use during peak periods.

This is not a typical situation in Ontario, as the honourable member will know. Cutbacks to customers who are on interruptible power have occurred very seldom in Ontario. In terms of the concern that is being demonstrated, I think the honourable member and all members of this House will recognize that Ontario Hydro is currently preparing a master plan for the provision of electricity to Ontario, not just through the next decade but in fact through the next 25 years. That is shortly to be tabled and will address both short-term and very long-term needs.

Mr Runciman: That has got to be a discouraging response, especially to industry across this province, because Ontario Hydro is obviously not living up to its mandate of providing a reliable supply of electricity. If this minister would get off her butt and get out there and talk to industry across this province -- when we phoned the deputy minister’s office they said she was not responsible for Ontario Hydro. John Savage and the deputy minister said the minister has nothing to do with the operation of Ontario Hydro, and that is very clear here today because she does not know what is going on. We have industries in this province cutting back on operations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps we had better calm down and not get too excited.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would you allow the minister to make a response? Thank you.

Hon Mrs McLeod: In terms of my awareness of what is taking place with Ontario Hydro, if time were to allow in my response to the member’s questions, I would give him very detailed information about peak capacity, reserve capacity, the amount that was required yesterday and why Ontario Hydro wanted to protect some reserve capacity to ensure there would not be brownouts in Ontario over the next little while.

If the member’s question is more concerned about whether or not we are working with Ontario Hydro to ensure that the requirements of electricity over the next decade and beyond are going to met, then I would draw the member’s attention both to the plan Ontario Hydro is going to submit and to the fact that we were concerned enough that this plan be considered expeditiously, but thoroughly, that we have already announced the process for government review of that plan which will begin as soon as the plan is tabled.

If the member is concerned about accountability of this ministry for Ontario Hydro, I might draw his attention to the Power Corporation Act amendments that were just recently passed.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There may be some members who do not want to hear the question, but I would like to.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Runciman: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I will try to restrain myself.

This has to do with the statement made by the Solicitor General with respect to police pursuits. I want to make reference to a comment in his statement that certainly strikes me as the government attempting to have it both ways -- I guess from a political perspective we can understand that -- saying this government has taken the position that a complete ban is not acceptable since it would only encourage criminals to flee the police. If, in his statement today, the minister is warned about criminals fleeing, how does this allay that fear?

Hon Mr Offer: Dealing with the question, I think what the honourable member has to recognize is that this statement is designed to increase and enhance public safety. It is designed to increase and enhance public safety through a number of measures: (

I) through the province-wide police pursuit guideline; (2) through increased public education; (3) through increased penalties and fines under the Highway Traffic Act; (4) through enhanced training; (5) through making these particular guidelines regulations under the Police Act.

I believe this five-pronged approach will not only enhance public safety but also will reduce police pursuits and reduce death and injury that are caused through them.

Mr Runciman: We tend to believe the minister is right with respect to reducing pursuits. We are probably going to see a lot of police officers simply pull off to the side of the road, uncertain about where they stand with respect to this government.

I want to pose a particular example to the minister. If we had a driver who had previously been convicted on two occasions of impaired driving and he was driving on a third occasion impaired and was caught up in a police net, and if he was not pursued, or was pursued, I want to ask the minister, what deterrent is inherent in his statement with respect to that kind of individual? What deterrent has the minister built into it, because he is already going to face an automatic suspension if he is caught? I would like to hear the minister’s rationale in terms of providing an effective deterrent.

The Speaker: The question has been asked twice.

Hon Mr Offer: I heard the member’s question but I am trying to determine what in fact the question was. The member should be very aware that these guidelines are not designed to direct what a particular decision should or should not be in a particular fact situation. What these guidelines, this initiative and announcement are designed to do is provide a framework for decision so that when that decision is made there is an enhancement of public safety.

The member should be aware that in dealing with the guidelines themselves, the key element must be the safety of the public.

Mr Runciman: I gather, from first blush in any event, we think this sort of an approach, rather than having the impact the minister wants it to have, is going to have the opposite effect. It is going to result in further endangerment of the public.

I want to talk about a couple of specifics in this as well, where the directive is prohibiting the police use of firearms for the sole purpose of attempting to stop a vehicle and prohibiting police vehicles from being used in ramming of vehicles being pursued. On a number of occasions, in both the United States and Canada, situations like those have stopped violent criminals and have prevented further deaths. Again, it is a situation where this Liberal government is further handicapping police in their ability to perform their duties and protect the public and ensure public safety. That is, in effect, what the minister is endangering.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Runciman: We want to talk about fines here as well. Why does the minister not have a mandatory jail sentence rather than fines?

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Runciman: My question is, indeed, has the minister really carefully reviewed some of these provisions in respect to stopping fleeing vehicles, specifically with the use of firearms and ramming, in terms of the impact they may have on public safety?

Hon Mr Offer: The member should be aware that the work done in formulating not only the guidelines dealing with police pursuits but in fact the initiatives which were announced today is the result and culmination of a great deal of time with the police community. The member should be well aware that the goals and the objectives of these initiatives are ones which are shared not only by this government, not only by the general community at large, but indeed by the police community.

I believe that the initiatives, the five-prong attack in dealing with police pursuits, will enhance public safety, will reduce the number of police pursuits in this province and will also result in a decrease in the type of injury which is now before the public.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I took a tour this morning similar to the one he took on 2 October with the Christian Resource Centre of the Regent Park area and some of the hostels and dropin centres. I am sure the minister will be happy to know that all of the hostels in the area are filled and overfilled; that the dropin centres are filled during the day; that a very small room in a rooming house in that area is renting for $350 to $450 a month.

In view of the fact that when one visits that area of Toronto one understands very clearly that the good times are not rolling for many people in this province, why would the minister not agree with the people at the Christian Resource Centre when they asked him to sign a simple commitment that this government was serious about housing; that it was going to create 14,000 affordable units next year; that it would take a lead role in the development of provincial lands to ensure that surplus lands would be used for affordable housing, and that it would work with nonprofit housing providers and community-based groups to ensure that innovative pilot projects were properly funded?

Why would the minister not make housing for those people a priority in this province?

Hon Mr Sweeney: In many ways, when I not only went on the tour with those people but, as the honourable member probably knows, met with quite a larger number of them afterwards and spent about an hour and a half answering their very direct questions, we talked about many of those same things. I pointed out to them that last year, this year and for the coming two years there will be more nonprofit and co-operative housing built in Ontario than in all of the rest of the country put together.

As the member well knows, Metropolitan Toronto gets a very, very substantial share of that, mainly because this is where the greater need is and that is what the purpose of that housing is.

With respect to support programs that go along with housing, the member is well aware of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) provides a range of support services in conjunction with programs that we use in housing.

With respect to provincial lands, I will be making an announcement next week of a whole series of uses of provincial land. We will shortly be making our announcement with respect to the use of the Seaton lands. All of that is in progress and I spoke to those people about all those things.

There was not anything there that we disagreed on.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The fact of the matter is that there are still in Metropolitan Toronto 10,000 to 20,000 people who are homeless. I saw people this morning, mothers and fathers with their little children, homeless in Ontario in 1989. It is a bloody disgrace that this is allowed to exist in Toronto or anyplace else in Ontario and it is unbelievable to us that the minister has not even got a housing program to come after the Homes Now program. When those 30,000 units are all used up -- 23,000 of them are now allocated -- there is nothing else in this province to solve this problem.

The vacancy rates announced last week --

The Speaker: And the question.

Mr D. S. Cooke: -- show 0.5 per cent in Hamilton, 0.6 per cent in Kitchener --

The Speaker: The question.

Mr D. S. Cooke: -- in Toronto, 0.3 per cent; Sudbury, 0.3 per cent.

The Speaker: The question.

Mr D. S. Cooke: This requires a massive response from this government. Where is their housing program?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I have just finished sharing with my honourable colleague the fact that this province has embarked on a housing program that is larger than the whole rest of the country put together; that is a fact. I just came back a week and a half ago from a meeting of all the other Housing ministers across the country with the federal minister and that was a recognized fact; we are doing that.

As a matter of fact, when we add in the roughly 5,000 to 6,000 units we are doing in co-operation with the federal government every year, our Project 3000, our Project 3600, our Project 30,000, we are talking of 50,000 housing units over a period of five or six years. That is very significant. The entire rest of the country is not matching that.

The second point, which the honourable member knows as well as I do, is that the vacancy rate surveys that were produced cover 60 per cent of the units in this province. They do not cover those buildings that have fewer than six units. That represents 40 per cent of all the units in this province and that represents a very significant share of lower-cost, available rental units in this province. The member has to keep that factor in mind as well.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is our understanding that all of us in this House look at a priority when it comes to physical and mental health in the treatment of children. Last year in children’s mental health services, there were over 10,000 children on waiting lists for service and it has now come to a crisis situation. Centres across Ontario are writing letters to all of the members in this House, I am sure, to let us know of their rather significant concern.

I know that a lot of these issues have been brought to the minister’s attention --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs Cunningham: -- and I think we have come to the point now where we have to ask him, will he be willing to meet with the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres at his earliest convenience? It would be much too difficult for us to take this on in this House.

Hon Mr Beer: Very simply, yes, I would be. Indeed, we have already begun a series of meetings at the officials level and I expect to be meeting with them. That was the intent of the meetings that have been ongoing. As the member points out, there are some serious issues there and we have agreed on how we are going to examine a number of them, but I certainly feel it is important in that process that I sit down with them and go over their concerns with them directly.

Mrs Cunningham: We are very pleased to hear that response and we urge the minister to meet as soon as possible. Just to help the minister along, there was a tremendous blueprint or overview of the mental health programs for children done in 1983. I hope he will take it into consideration. This report went so far as to say that children’s mental health should be handled by the Ministry of Health and not Community and Social Services. That was some six years ago.

In the last four years we have seen an increase by four times in waiting lists. Can the minister advise the House that he is working with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to solve this problem and that he will take that into consideration as he looks towards meeting the demands for mental health programs for children in Ontario?

Hon Mr Beer: I am aware of the report the honourable member mentioned and we are dealing on an ongoing basis with the Ministry of Health on the broad area of mental health, and more specifically, children’s mental health. There are a number of issues, which in letters to me and in my own meetings with children’s mental health centres in York region, where that issue, in terms of who ought to be responsible, how the system ought to be managed and the funding of that system, had been raised. I hope to explore all of those and other issues they wish to raise when I meet with them.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Adams: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. It seems to me that it is not enough for the government to develop and support reduction and recycling programs for others, it must set an example by reducing, reusing and recycling its own waste. What is the Ministry of Government Services doing about waste management within government?

Hon Mr Ward: As the member will know, having heard an earlier response from the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), the Ministry of Government Services is indeed embarking on a very comprehensive waste management program. The objective in the first phase of that program is to prevent as much waste material as possible from entering our landfill sites or going into incineration, and for that reason we are focusing primarily on the recycling of waste materials.

Members will know that recycling bins and blue boxes are currently being distributed to all government offices within Metropolitan Toronto. Our goal is to cover some 45,000 government employees in 120 offices. We are also conducting comprehensive waste audits on six types of government facilities across the province to determine how much solid waste is currently being generated by the Ontario government, how much is recyclable and how we can reduce the volume of waste.

Members will also know we even recycle furniture, if they have ever looked at the desks in their offices.

Mr Adams: I am grateful for that response. It seems to me that another weapon which the government has in the war against waste is procurement. Does the Ministry of Government Services take environmental concerns into account when placing orders for supplies needed by the various ministries?

Hon Mr Ward: The answer is yes. Indeed, the Ontario government purchases some $2 billion worth a year of supplies and services. We are deeply committed to being environmentally sensitive in that procurement. MGS is currently chairing an interministerial committee that will be making recommendations on environmentally sensitive products and services.

We have already taken the first steps by introducing a line of recycled products in our office products centre for sale to government. Six recycled products including bond paper, envelopes, toner cartridges for laser printers, presentation kits, storage cartons and packaging supplies will be available for sale in January. More recycled products are expected to be added to the inventory later in the spring.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last May this House and this government embarked on a new era in social assistance policy. The aim of that new policy was to meet the real needs of real people and end the arbitrary use of discretionary rules by administrators and operators through the system in order to provide a new sense of dignity, a new purpose and new opportunities for people who are facing a crisis in their lives.

Yet over the last two days we have had instances come to us, through the press and otherwise, which tell us that homeless persons who resort to hostels, instead of having some maintenance available for them, are being cast out either into the streets or they have to subsist for basic needs with resort to charity, and, on the other hand, a young woman who wants to complete high school is unable to access social assistance.

Will the minister please tell us what is going on under this new regime? It seems to be contrary to the original purpose.

Hon Mr Beer: First of all, to the issue the member raises around the homeless, in the spring we sent out a directive -- and this goes back to a question he asked in the House last month when we had heard that there were people who were homeless who were applying for social assistance and being refused. We indicated that those who were homeless had a right to social assistance and it should be given to them. At the same time, we wanted to make clear that people could go to a hostel where they would receive shelter and food and where they are also eligible for a personal needs allowance.

So there were two options, if you want to put it in that sense, where the individual who was going to the welfare office was able to take assistance, but by the same token, if that individual was going a hostel that does not mean he or she could not receive the personal needs allowance. We wanted to make clear that homeless people had a right to receive social assistance and also that in the hostel that does not mean that is the only thing you receive -- just the food and shelter.

Mr Allen: In that particular case it appears that in the hands of the Metropolitan Toronto social services department that special needs allowance is in fact being denied. On the one hand, you may go to a hostel where you may receive board and room, and both halves of your social assistance allowance will be denied. Apparently there is no further allowance in place for those persons and there are shelters in the community which are in fact denying persons the right to access if they are receiving assistance of any other form. This puts them in a very serious catch-22 situation, as I am sure the minister would appreciate.

Hon Mr Beer: The honourable member is quite right that there has been at times a problem in the Metro system around that personal needs allowance. That has been partly because of some administrative problems. We have had discussions in making clear that individuals in hostels are eligible for the personal needs allowance and we hope we have been able to rectify that problem.

I would want to make very clear that no one should be refused entry to a hostel, that there are those who chose to take the larger allowance and not go into the hostel and are receiving that support for food and shelter, as well. But the individual going into the hostel is eligible for the personal needs allowance.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister most likely chose not to act on behalf of the tourism hospitality industry when the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) brought in his commercial concentration tax on parking lots and large commercial buildings in the greater Metro Toronto area. This tax will result in parking fees rising by 142 per cent and undermine Ontario’s competitive tourism hospitality industry.

Is the minister not a little bit worried about the effect this is going to have on tourism in Toronto, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Black: The member will know there are many factors which affect tourism in this province and which would cause concern both for operators and for the minister responsible for tourism. He has identified taxation as one of those problems and certainly I share views with my friend the Treasurer on that question on a regular basis.

But I want him to know we are concerned about many other factors which are equally damaging to the prospects for tourism in this province. We are looking, for example, at questions as to why the number of visitors to Ontario is on the decline. We are looking at questions as to why fewer people within Ontario are travelling within their own province. We recognize that there is no one single answer to a very complex question.

Mr McLean: If the minister is offering his views, it certainly does not appear that the Treasurer is listening -- the increased taxes on gasoline, the increased sales tax, the increased tax on this commercial concentration with regard to parking. It does not appear that the minister has any input in cabinet with the Treasurer of the province of Ontario. What is the minister going to do to help the tourist industry stay viable here in Toronto and Ontario?

Hon Mr Black: We know the member for Simcoe East would very much welcome the opportunity to be able to have some input within cabinet. Unfortunately, the people of Ontario have not seen fit to provide him with that opportunity.

Recognizing his very significant interest in the tourist industry, I would like to ask the member for Simcoe East what he is going to do to deal with his federal counterparts, who this past year have decreased funding for tourism marketing by over $10 million. I ask the member for Simcoe East, what is he going to do to talk to his federal cousins about their lack of support for tourism across this country?

Mr Speaker, I know you will want to know and the member for Simcoe East will want to know that far more damaging than any tax that the provincial government is going to levy will be the effect of the goods and services tax. I ask the member for Simcoe East, what is he going to do to talk to Michael Wilson about the impact of the GST on tourism in Ontario?

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Simcoe East could answer that at some later time.

POLICE LEGISLATION

Mr Kormos: A question of the Solicitor General: The Solicitor General promised some time ago that he was going to present a new Police Act to this House before the end of 1989. It is not a new promise, because the promise had been made by his predecessor. She promised that she was going to present a new Police Act. She did not keep her promise and I am wondering whether the current Solicitor General intends to keep his.

Hon Mr Offer: It is my intention that I will be introducing a new Police Act in this Legislature before Christmas.

Mr Kormos: I am wondering if the Solicitor General appreciates the importance of issues like an independent public complaints procedure across the province. I am wondering if he appreciates the importance of monitoring alarms and, indeed, the importance of a whole number of issues, including police commission appointments. Is the Police Act going to be comprehensive and is it going to address all those things that have been the subject of debate in this Legislature for a number of years now?

Hon Mr Offer: I have indicated earlier that I very much agree with the principle of a public complaints system across this province, and we will be working towards its implementation.

BEEF INDUSTRY

Mr Wiseman: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister knows, Canada Packers in Burlington, as of 19 January, will cease to slaughter cattle. The majority of cattle farmers in eastern Ontario have always sent their finished livestock to this plant and, as a result of the closure, they must find a market farther away. They will have to shoulder increased transportation costs at a time when the agricultural economy is already suffering.

Is this another example of the minister’s commitment to the farmers of eastern Ontario? What advice can he give the farmers of Lanark and Renfrew?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to thank the member for the question. I would like to question the questioner about the premise of his question, though, that a plant closing happens to reflect on my policy towards cattlemen in this province. Not at all.

What we are seeing is a rationalization of that industry. I am working very closely with the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association on its blueprint plan, which it has developed in partnership with us. That plan is working very well and I think we can beat this rationalization back and have a good and viable cattle operation and business in this province.

Mr Wiseman: I wonder if this minister and this government care a darn about farmers in eastern Ontario.

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Wiseman: As the minister knows, this is the fifth plant in Ontario to close this year. The Ontario Cattlemen’s Association that he mentioned says it is seeing the results of government inaction. The ministry issued a report last year -- maybe the minister does not know about it, but it issued a report in which it concluded that this government was not competing with western provinces in aiding the processing plants and that the industry in this province faced an almost immediate drastic reduction. We are seeing this -- five plants closed.

Why is the minister not acting on his own ministry’s study and what is he going to do about this very serious situation?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am glad the member has finally brought up the nub of this problem, which is really that we do not have a level playing field in this country. We see western treasuries starting to compete in giving their farmers programs that obviously put them in an extremely competitive position. On Sunday night I will be meeting with my confreres from across the province and Mazankowski, the federal Minister of Agriculture, and bringing this very point to him. We are working together with the ministers of agriculture in the other provinces to make sure we have a level playing field for the cattlemen in this country so that the Ontario cattle industry can be strong in the future.

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

Mr Kanter: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I was recently contacted by Barbara Thornber of the Young Women’s Christian Association regarding the future of Stop 86, Metropolitan Toronto’s emergency shelter for young women. When I learned that Stop 86 faced severe financial difficulties, I helped to arrange a meeting between representatives of the Y, which operates Stop 86, and officials of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Can the ministry advise on the outcome of that meeting?

Hon Mr Beer: I want to thank my colleague for the work that he has undertaken in trying to help Stop 86. I think we have recognized that they perform an essential service and they, along with others, are providing very needed help. We were concerned about the financial situation, and as the honourable member points out, on 29 November there was a meeting between officials of my ministry and Stop 86 which has led to a grant of $45,000 to help deal with the immediate problem that Stop 86 faces.

It is our hope that that will assist in dealing with the immediate problem that they find themselves in.

Mr Kanter: I appreciate the quick and positive response of the minister and his staff in responding to this situation with a grant of $45,000. However, as I understand it, the agency faces a total financial shortfall in the vicinity of $200,000, and I am wondering if the minister could advise whether his positive response is being matched or is likely to be matched by other levels of government or the voluntary sector.

Hon Mr Beer: On 1 December, we met with officials from Metropolitan Toronto to look at the particular base-funding problem that was being faced by Stop 86 and indeed by several other shelters that are involved with women in Metro Toronto. We believe that out of those discussions we have some proposals which will meet the longer-term problem. It is my understanding that Metro will be looking at these proposals early in January. If they are favourably disposed to them, we would then be able to go forward and, I think, provide the kind of support to Stop 86 and to three of the other shelters in Metropolitan Toronto that would deal with that fundamental issue.

I was also pleased to note in today’s paper that the city of Toronto council has provided a grant of $25,000 as well to Stop 86. I think collectively, and with Stop 86, we will be able to put it on a much sounder financial footing for the future.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that the offices of support and custody of his ministry are supposed to enforce court orders for support across the province. In Sudbury there is a case load of 7,000, and there are seven clerks to deal with those 7,000 cases. Since 73 per cent of those cases are in default, will the Attorney General make a commitment here and now to adequately staff the Sudbury office?

Hon Mr Scott: I am very grateful for the honourable member’s question because I believe, as far as my ministry is concerned, there has been no initiative that has been more highly regarded in the last couple of years than the support and custody orders enforcement program. With the exception of the province of Manitoba, there is no other province in the country and few states in North America that have a program like this.

We began in Ontario with an enormous disadvantage in the sense that 85 per cent of the support orders that were made in the province, most of which involve young children, were not being honoured. We have reduced that rate in the sense that we have increased the compliance rate in slightly under two years from 15 per cent to about 27 per cent, a very significant achievement.

We have very large backlogs. We are working very hard to provide a high level of service, and although I cannot do it by having a reception for them, I am anxious to pay my tribute to the staff of the department, who have worked so very hard. That is particularly true in the Sudbury district, where the demand is very great. But, as the honourable member will know, while all is not yet perfect, we have made very great strides in collecting these orders.

Mr Laughren: I will try again. I have asked the Attorney General if he would make a commitment to increase the staff at the Sudbury office so that it can get on with doing the job that it so much wants to do and that, I think the Attorney General should understand, all of us want to see it able to do.

Surely to goodness the Attorney General understands that many of these are women. Christmas is coming. They find that there is a huge waiting list because they are all dealing with files going back to 1987 and 1988. So when anyone comes in with new files, they are put at the bottom of the list. There is an enormous backlog and they end up going to a lawyer, which, of course, costs them big bucks. Why will the Attorney General not make a commitment to adequately staff that office?

Hon Mr Scott: I am quite sympathetic to the honourable member’s concern and I would like to make the commitment he seeks and would like to meet with him privately to discuss it. But I suppose our conversation would be taped and, thereafter, where would either of us be?

I am very concerned to see that the staff of the office is as effectively utilized as possible. Like every other government ministry that runs an important social program, we are anxious to provide as effective and useful a service as we can. It is my pledge to the honourable member that we will be bringing in some changes in the program which I believe will make it operate more efficiently and effectively in the public service.

I am very grateful for my honourable friend’s question and for questions and a statement made the other day by the honourable member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) which made some useful suggestions for the conduct of the office. I will bear those very much in mind.

FOOD PROMOTION

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. One area that this government must start warning customers about is the harmful effects of foods containing palm and coconut oils. Medical studies have shown there to be a high correlation in the use of saturated fats and heart disease. Coconut oil, for instance, contains some 90 per cent saturated fats, while palm oil contains some 50 per cent. By contrast, domestically produced canola has six per cent of saturated fats, and soya oil has only 13 per cent.

Would the minister consider labelling as foods that you should be very careful with those that contain palm and coconut oil?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am very pleased that the member is trying to give powers to me that I do not have at this time, but I share the concern the member has about food labelling. Obviously, we are looking at developing Canada-wide standards and I am working with the other ministers in doing this.

But I think what the member has pointed out also is right, that there are great products grown in Ontario, such as soya oil and canola -- which is an-up and-coming product for sure, a product that grows very well in all of Ontario and is being very successfully grown in northern Ontario -- that are very safe and, in the case of canola, have zero cholesterol. I think there is a great future for those oils.

Mr Villeneuve: Foodland Ontario, and the minister has touched on it, is a most important project. I think Foodland Ontario should take the initiative to show our consumers that we do have grown in Ontario same alternatives to the palm oil -- our soya -- and I think it should be at least publicized by Foodland Ontario.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am glad the member is supportive of the Foodland Ontario program, because I agree with the member that it is very important that we promote the products grown in this province. The products grown in this province are some of the healthiest products grown anywhere in the world. I think we can go a long way in talking to our consumer and telling the consumer in Ontario that Ontario produce needs to be supported and it is some of the healthiest around the world.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I will not have time for the supplementary, but we will go ahead.

We have had, between 1 November 1988 and 31 October 1989, eight fatal accidents, 11 people killed and 290 injured on the

section of Highway 401 in the Woodstock area.

Speeding is one of the main causes of traffic accidents. I understand there is a method used in European countries where a camera is located on a bridge overpass which records the vehicle, the licence number, the speed and the time of day.

When there has been a violation of the traffic act, a summons is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. Can you advise this House if there is such equipment, if this type of equipment could be effective on province of Ontario highways and also, if the minister has time, tell us about trucks and things like that?

Hon Mr Wrye: I thank the honourable member for his question. He raises a very important issue, and that is the issue of fatalities, not only on his road but on others, and the solutions that we might find.

I am aware, as the honourable member points out, that in countries like Germany and Australia such a system exists. We are continuing to look at the system, but while certain aspects of the system are attractive to us, I would just say to the honourable member that it has the one failure of not being able to identify the driver of the car. It can identify the vehicle, the licence number and a lot of other things, but in terms of our enforcement policies, our enforcement has been driven towards the responsibility of the driver, who, when speeding, for example, at certain times may pick up demerit points.

It would cause a complete reversal of our policy and as such, while it is one which, on the surface, looks attractive, it is one which we do not see in the final analysis looking attractive.

Mr Tatham: In view of the fact that we will have longer trucks on our highways, I have had suggestions made to me that they should be slowed down and legislated to stay in the right lane only except for passing. I would appreciate the minister’s comments.

Hon Mr Wrye: I just say to the honourable member, again, this is an issue which has been looked at and, as he knows, from time to time there have been differential speeds for cars and trucks in a number of jurisdictions. One of the problems with that is that differential speeds are not the safest way to move traffic along our busy throughways. A constant speed appropriately followed by all drivers leads to the safest possible situation, so we are not drawn towards a situation where a 90-kilometre-an-hour speed limit for trucks might be appropriate and where cars would be driving 100 kilometres an hour.

One of the things we need to do is ensure that those trucks or indeed those cars do not go far beyond the speed limit, that all people adhere to the speed limit. Then, and only then, will our highways and our roadways generally be as safe as they possibly can.

PETITIONS

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Neumann: This being the national day of concern on the cutbacks to VIA Rail, I have 1,600 names here -- people from my riding and from surrounding tidings; Norfolk, Cambridge, Wentworth and so on -- objecting to the drastic cutbacks to Via Rail and urging the government of Ontario to pressure the federal government to reverse its decision.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Wildman: I have a petition to the Legislature requesting that the Parliament of Ontario pass into law a bill prohibiting the use of animals in cosmetic and product testing; that is, Bill 190.

This petition is signed by approximately 1,000 residents of mostly southern Ontario communities and it now brings the total of signatures on this petition to approximately 73,000. I support it and I have affixed my signature to it.

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS FACILITY

Mr MacDonald: I have a petition with 260 signatures addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas we are employees of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Prince Edward Heights, in and around the counties of Prince Edward, Hastings and Lennox; and

“Whereas Prince Edward Heights is currently the highest diversified

schedule I facility within the ministry; and

“Whereas we as an organization will continue to diversify; and

“Whereas we are requesting a special-case exclusion from the divestment process of the ministry’s multi-year plan;

“We request that the House refrain from divesting or closing the Prince Edward Heights Facility.”

I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Mr Polsinelli from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

M. Polsinelli du Comité permanent de l’administration de la justice présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 49,

An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy in Municipalities and Local Boards.

Projet de loi 49, Loi prévoyant l’accès a l’information et la protection de la vie privée dans les municipalités et les conseils locaux.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 52,

An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario Consequent upon Enactment of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adopteé.

The Speaker: Shall Bill 49 be ordered for third reading?

Mr Sterling: No.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

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

The Speaker: Shall Bill 52 be ordered for third reading?

Mr Sterling: No.

Hon Mr Elston: You’re being a jerk.

Mr Sterling: You are.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Velshi from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee’s 18th annual report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

On motion by Mr Velshi, the debate was adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr Sweeney moved first reading of Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Sweeney: Very briefly, this bill gives municipalities greater flexibility to determine how they will collect sewer and water charges.

It also gives regional governments the authority to enter into agreements with other municipalities for the management of municipal services.

This legislation transfers dog licensing provisions from the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act, administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to the Municipal Act, administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The bill also gives municipalities more flexibility in how they regulate parking.

Finally, it ensures that microfilm copies of municipal documents will be acceptable as evidence in court.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr O’Neil moved third reading of Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, with regard and with high respect to your competence, by convention and tradition most recently people have expressed a few words, or were given that opportunity, even at third reading.

The Speaker: There have been occasions when members have wished to speak to third reading. Is that the request that the member is making?

Mr Pouliot: Again by tradition, while not departing from our stand, because loyalty is one of the key words of our party, I just want to thank the minister. I said before that I would welcome the opportunity to speak on third reading, it is so seldom that we agree with the government.

The Mining Act has not been revised in any significant way since 1906. It was just this morning that I received some phone calls asking, “Is it true that it will finally be passed?” so I join with the ministry in saying this is a cause for mild celebration.

But let’s not wait when problems need to be addressed. Let’s be somewhat more expeditious so that the people in the marketplace will be able to benefit from some sort of guidance. Let’s not wait as long as we have in the past.

Motion agreed to.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Scott moved second reading of Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Hon Mr Scott: It will seem odd to some members that we are moving today second reading of a bill designed to amend Bills 2 and 3, which have not yet been proclaimed and which, I think, were passed some 10 days ago. I should explain to honourable members that when Bills 2 and 3 were introduced in the House it was our expectation, or at least our hope, that the bills would be passed and proclaimed by the end of June so that the Attorney General of Canada would be able to act on them promptly.

Some members of the judiciary and the bar complained that this would not provide an adequate period for comment on what they regarded as a reasonably complex and important piece of legislation. As a result, we indicated to them that an amending bill would be introduced before the first bill, Bill 2, was proclaimed. In the reality, it became unnecessary to do that because Bills 2 and 3 were not debated at second or third reading until this autumn, but it was considered desirable and in the interests of amity to continue with our undertaking.

We have also, as members will see from Bill 81’s contents, had the advantage of further comments that have been made by members of the House, particularly our two distinguished critics, in the course of the debate on Bills 2 and 3 and have had the opportunity to incorporate same of those proposals in the bill before us.

The most significant change proposed in Bill 81 is the creation of the office of Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court (General Division). As members will know, Bill 2 did not create this office, nor did it create a parallel office for Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division).

However, the federal minister, who of course is responsible under the Constitution for appointments to the General Division, was firmly of the view and expressed his strong opinion that the office of Associate Chief Justice was needed for the General Division. He has requested us to put before the House this change.

Fully one third of the rest of the provisions of Bill 81 are consequential changes that are necessary by virtue of the establishment of the office of Associate Chief Justice of the General Division. The remainder of the provisions in the bill are largely technical in nature and, as I have said, most of them result from requests made by members of the various courts respecting changes affecting the particular courts.

I should advise members that we do have two small amendments to propose to this bill in committee of the whole House. I believe our critics have copies of those amendments. They deal with the provisions relating to the courts management advisory committees, which are established not only for the province but for each of the eight regions. These amendments are intended to deal with some concerns I have heard in this House and from some few lawyers and judges about the

interpretation to be given to those enacting provisions.

I have always regarded, as has the staff of the ministry, that these sections were clear as they stood, but we do recognize that others have been concerned that there may be some potential impact in the provisions of those sections in respect of independence of the judiciary. There has never been any intention, and there is not now any intention, to entrench in the slightest on judicial independence, which all members of the House regard as an important constitutional principle.

What the bill is designed to do is create a formal consultation mechanism in which the stakeholders in the system will have an opportunity to consult with each other and to make recommendations to appropriate deciding bodies about how the administration of justice in the province can best be affected. I believe Bill 2 intended to achieve that result and I hope the amendments that we will be proposing today will make that clear.

I will be very grateful -- I hope it is not premature to say it -- for the co-operation of the members in assuring that the bill will achieve reasonably expeditious passage.

Mr Kormos: We are going to co-operate and ensure the speedy passage of this particular bill. One thing I will tell members, though, and I join with others who might make this comment, is that had the matter not been proceeded with so speedily and had there not been so much haste, it would not have been necessary to bring amendments like this to bills that were rammed through, notwithstanding the concerns raised by a number of groups and individuals to the effect that they had not had sufficient opportunity to raise their concerns about them.

I would also want to remind the Attorney General (Mr Scott) that if he -- and l am sure he is, as are all of us -- is concerned about the effective and efficient administration of justice in the province, he would pay attention to areas like the Niagara region, in particular Niagara South, and recognize that the greatest single impediment we have in Niagara South to an efficient and reasonably speedy administration of justice is the lack of courtroom facilities.

He has told this Legislature more than once that we are on the short list, and that is to say that Niagara South is on the short list. Niagara South deals with a courtroom facility for the district courts that is over 100 years old and, although majestic in its structure, is totally inadequate in terms of accommodating the courts that are designed to take place there.

It has to deal with provincial courts that are scattered about in temporary and rented facilities which in no way, shape or form lend those courts the majesty which ought to be accorded them and which indeed generate a level of danger for the participants in the proceedings and for the judges because they are not designed with security in mind.

These facilities range from rented community halls to rented plaza facilities. They do not have adequate facilities for containing prisoners, they do not have adequate facilities for protecting the physical safety of judges, witnesses, officers of the court or other participants in the proceedings. As I say, they do little to add grace to the proceedings themselves; indeed the proceedings are trivialized by virtue of the environment that they take place in.

So I would urge the Attorney General to, if he would, reciprocate the co-operation. We are so pleased to vote in support of Bill 81. At the same time, we would be so very pleased to see the Attorney General expedite the development of a new courtroom facility in the city of Welland to serve Niagara South, a courtroom facility that would maintain the historical role of Welland as the county seat and at the same time recognize the increased needs and expanded needs of the provincial, the district and, of course, the Supreme Court benches there.

I can say we have in Niagara, and certainly in Niagara South, an outstanding bench and an excellent leading bar who are more than eager to get to work and make sure that cases proceed with the utmost speed and with only the most reasonable delay. They are stymied, they are hamstrung in those efforts by virtue of the facilities that are -- I should not say available -- not available to them.

The real way of making the administration of justice speedier and more efficient in Niagara is to improve the facilities made available to the courts in that area. I would urge the Attorney General to pay some speedy attention to that particular matter. I would be mare than pleased to co-operate with him. He can drive down with me or I will drive down with him, whichever way he prefers. We can go in either the convertible or the truck, but I am serious about the need for courtroom facilities. We are in dire need. It is a disgrace and it certainly does not lend the courts the respect that they ought to have and that they deserve.

Mr Sterling: I think it is a bit ironic that we are dealing with Bill 81 today, in that we had sort of a similar experience yesterday in the standing committee on administration of justice on another two bills that were reported to the Legislature today, Bills 49 and 52, dealing with the municipal freedom of information legislation.

Before I start commenting with regard to the process, which I think is probably more important than this minor bill, it is nice to have the Attorney General here today with us in the Legislature dealing with same of his legislation. I would only comment that when the difficult bills are there, like Bills 2 and 3, the ones that have complexity, he sends out his parliamentary assistant to do the tough work, but when we are dealing with what I would call a relatively minor bill, Bill 81, which really is trying to clean up the mess that was created by the Attorney General earlier, in walks the Attorney General.

The Attorney General is here this afternoon to hear debate, but unfortunately most of the debate took place last June, last August and last month. As he has mentioned in his opening remarks, Bill 81 ironically is brought to the Legislature for second reading only 10 days after we passed Bills 2 and 3. I think it is important for the public to understand exactly what happened with the process, and really the arrogance of the government and how they deal with legislation.

I just want to relay to the Speaker, because you will be interested in this, Mr Speaker, that last Monday we had public hearings in the justice committee on Bills 49 and 52, fairly complicated legislation although somewhat familiar to many members of the committee because the freedom-of-information legislation that is being dealt with for municipalities is very similar to the provincial legislation. We had public hearings on Monday which ended at 5:15 pm.

I do not know how much the government really listens to public hearings, but I suspect it would at least want to give the impression that it was listening to what the public had to say, considering what the public had to say and perhaps amending the legislation that was in front of the committee. But no, as soon as the public hearings were over, the government members of the committee insisted on going ahead on the clause-by-clause analysis of Bills 49 and 52. They agreed, after some argument put forward by me, that we would at least postpone that until Tuesday.

As you know, Mr Speaker, yesterday we were dealing in this Legislature with Bill 68. At that time, I wanted to be in the Legislature, as did most people in the justice committee. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) wanted to be in the Legislature as well on Bill 68. He is very much interested in the no-fault insurance bill. In fact, I was amazed to see that the Attorney General was here neither for the debate nor for the vote.

Hon Mr Scott: It is not my bill.

Mr Sterling: I know, but I know that the Attorney General gives it his full support.

The point of all this is to say that yesterday I put forward a motion in the justice committee to say: “Let’s wait for a little while so we can at least take the public submissions, break them down

section by

section and consider what they have said to the justice committee in our deliberations on the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. If they make a good suggestion on

section 15 or whatever section, we will be able to consider that as an amendment before the committee and either accept it or reject it.” No way was the justice committee going to have anything to do with that.

I suggested that because two members of the justice committee in the opposition, all the opposition members, wanted to be in the Legislature to deal with the no-fault insurance bill, we suspend the committee for that purpose. No way was that going to happen. What happened yesterday was that another member of the public wanted to come in and make a submission to the committee. So in they came and made the submission to the justice committee.

In frustration, I threw up my hands and said: “I have prepared my amendments. Here they are in writing to the members of the justice committee. I am not trying to hide anything. This is what I think my amendments are, but perhaps I will have others after I see the analysis of what has happened with the others.”

I think the height of arrogance came not 15 or 20 minutes ago in this Legislature, Mr Speaker, because as you know, when a bill is reported to you from a committee, it is a right in the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly that any committee can request that a bill go into committee of the whole House so that we can deal with the sections. That is where I intended to put forward my amendments. The government knew that, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr Elston) knew that -- I told him yesterday that I wanted to put forward my amendments -- and the Chairman of Management Board utters across the floor that l am a jerk.

Hon Mr Scott: What?

Mr Sterling: That is what the Chairman of Management Board called me today, a jerk --

Hon Mr Scott: I would never say such a thing myself.

Mr Sterling: -- a jerk for doing what in fact the standing orders permit me to do as a member of the Legislature and what I have a duty to do as a member of the opposition, presenting amendments to legislation in a constructive fashion. That is the height of arrogance of this government. When you use the right to debate in this Legislature, they call you a jerk.

That is because there are few rules which protect the right of members of this Legislature to debate, and this government with 94 members does not want debate. They do not want to listen to members of the public, to have them come into the committees of this Legislature and present what they consider constructive suggestions in regard to legislation. The members of this government want it their way all the time.

Unfortunately, by not listening to the public, we have the result, as shown today, of Bill 81. Bills 2 and 3 were introduced in this Legislature on 1 May 1989, two pieces of legislation which were very detailed and complex pieces. On or about the third or fourth week of June, the justice committee started to have hearings with regard to these bills, and we heard in front of that justice committee that the people who wanted to make submissions needed more time to look at Bills 2 and 3 in order to analyse them and make suggestions to the committee.

The justice committee met again in early August of this year, 2 or 3 August I believe, and at that time again the public groups, particularly the bar of Ontario through the Canadian Bar Association and the Advocates’ Society, had not prepared their briefs to the committee so that we could consider what they said in a constructive way.

At that time the member for Welland-Thorold, myself and the member for Ottawa South (Mr McGuinty) supported a motion to not report the bill to the Legislature until the first or second week of October, when in fact the Legislature was going to reconvene, as happened on 10 October. There really were no negatives to leaving it open so that if in fact a group wanted to come in, the justice committee could reconvene, could hear what they said, make their determination and be done with it. No. The Liberal members on the justice committee, save and except the member for Ottawa South, said:

“We’re going to ram this through. We’re going to report it to the Legislature.”

What happens when it comes back in the Legislature? I said no when the Speaker said, “Shall this bill be called for third reading?” I forced it back into the committee of the whole House and I guess, according to the Chairman of the Management Board, I am a jerk again because I am asking for the --

Mr Breaugh: A guy has got to be right once in a while.

Mr Sterling: Unfortunately, I think there may be the odd --

Mr Ballinger: I would like you to notice I didn’t say a word.

Mr Sterling: Yes, I know. I forced it into committee of the whole House, and at that time we were able to go through amendments to the bill. Again, I felt we did not deal adequately with Bills 2 and 3 because by August the government itself, from 1 May to 1 August, had discovered 45 errors in Bills 2 and 3, and had presented 45 amendments. I presented 10 or 11 amendments during that hearing, and there were some minor amendments accepted by the government during the committee of the whole House.

Now Bill 81 again has I believe 24 sections to it, so 45 amendments plus 24 makes 69 amendments to this bill since 1 May. We were concerned because this bill deals with the structure and jurisdictions of various courts in our province. We were concerned that a case would come before the courts and that it would be decided on the basis of lack of jurisdiction by one court or the other or the inability of one judge to hear a certain matter, or that the mixup in the structure of the courts would in fact interfere with the case being decided on the merits of that particular case.

I do believe, however, through the parliamentary assistant, perhaps the Attorney General might be learning a little bit about the process as he is going through Bills 2 and 3 and Bill 81. It is my firm belief that members of this Legislature, when dealing particularly with legislation surrounding the Ministry of the Attorney General, save and except pieces of legislation like Bill 194, are not of a political nature and that the amendments are put forward, generally in good faith, to try to deal with the issues in the best manner possible.

Of course, there is always a colour of politics in any amendment that is put forward because there are two sides to the argument, either in support or against a particular amendment that is put forward.

But I do want to say that I have tried, and the members of our caucus have tried, to be constructive in dealing with most of the legislation that has been brought forward by the Attorney General.

In fact, the Attorney General knows that some of the legislation which he has passed in this Legislative Assembly over the past three years has not been because it has been high on his priority list, but because I have intervened at the House leaders’ meeting and asked the New Democratic Party, the other opposition party, if it has any objection to a smaller or minor bill so that we can get on with it and get it out of the way. That has in fact happened from time to time, as we have gone over the past three years.

I just want to say that I am extremely disappointed in how Bills 2 and 3 have been handled. I think it is an indication of the inability of the Liberal members on the justice committee to act independently, save and except I will give the member for Ottawa South. There was one indication of some degree of independence on his part when his senses came to him with regard to how the process should work.

But if we have a complicated piece of legislation that is introduced by the government, we want to give that legislation at least some time to gestate, so that the people who are involved will have the time to examine it, will have the time to come and give us their free advice, free advice to the legislators on how it can be improved, and worthwhile amendments can be put forward and considered by members of this assembly and we can deal with it in a really meaningful way.

I have read Bill 81. It deals with a whole scattering and smattering of matters, many of which were raised during the committee hearings on Bills 2 and 3. We have no great objection to any of those and will be supporting Bill 81 on second reading.

Hon Mr Scott: I will just make a short remark. First, I am grateful to the critics of the ministry for their assistance and I should say to my honourable friend who spoke last that I am aware that consultation is important and the role of members of this House in making proposals is important.

I think it is useful to remember that the genesis of this merger bill really goes back to 1974. The debate has been going on in this province about Bills 2 and 3 essentially for 15 years. The member and I and the honourable member for Welland-Thorold belong to a profession which is noble and distinguished, but which does not always move all the time everywhere at top speed. Thus it was that, when this bill was introduced after 15 years of discussion, the Canadian Lawyer magazine said that we were committed to a rush to judgement in respect of merger, notwithstanding that it had already taken place in eight other Canadian provinces.

We are moving, and the process of getting the bill into committee and through the House has been an important and useful one and I am grateful for the changes. I would not want the honourable member who spoke last to think that each amendment is an error. Each amendment is frequently an effort to accommodate a concern or an anxiety about the impact of the bill, or indeed a demand.

A third of the amendments in Bill 81 before the House arise as a result of the request of the Attorney General of Canada that there should be an Associate Chief Justice of the General Division court, even though the judges of that court did not make that request themselves. The amendments members see before them are not a result of error; they are a result really of the consultation process and the work, I credit, of the honourable members.

To the honourable member who spoke last, I have noted that in the four years I have been here, much of the legislation I have had the honour to introduce has been supported by him in one measure or another, and he regards this last four years in the nonpartisan world of judicial reform as a Garden of Eden of legislative change. All the things I know the honourable member for years had high on his list are now, with his help and support, being done and taking place, from freedom of information to Bill 2.

I am delighted to have the honourable member not on our side in political terms but in the work of significant reform supporting, by and large, these amendments and commenting on how they can be improved.

I just draw the line at one matter. To assert that the parliamentary assistant who has worked long and hard on this messed-up Bill 2 and that I had to come to his rescue is entirely wrong. His efforts, as I know the honourable member accepts, were noble, and indeed I am sure the bill was passed with greater alacrity and enthusiasm on all sides than if I had been here myself.

To the member for Welland-Thorold, let me say that one of the first visits I made after I became Attorney General in 1985 was to Welland to see the facilities in the historic but ancient district courthouse and in the provincial and family division. I have had occasion, from time to time, to meet with the members of the bar in that district and with the judges to discuss their circumstances.

Indeed, it was really the circumstances in Welland that led the government to accept my suggestion that a province-wide priority list should be prepared. We were not happy to continue any longer with a situation in which attorneys general or officers of the government moved out to a district and said, “We will put a courthouse here or there.” We wanted the people of the province to understand that there was an open process and they would see through that process and their own submissions as part of it a public list of the order in which the government proposed to do things.

We established that process three years ago by sending demographic studies of each district, except Ottawa and St Catharines where there were new courthouses, to the 47 other districts in the province and getting local input. As a result of that process, Welland, l am happy to say to the honourable member, took its place on the first priority list which was projects that the government hoped it would be able to undertake in the first five years of our mandate. I think Welland is either number 7 or number 9 on the first five-year priority list.

We are moving through that list, never with the speed that we would like but at a reasonable pace so that the five-year plan, if I can use a planning phrase more familiar to members of the opposition than to me, can be accomplished. I understand I think, as fully as any outsider could, the needs of Welland. I am responsive to them and I am glad that they have found their place on the priority list. Hopefully work will start before the five-year plan is completed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Consideration of Bill 81,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

The First Deputy Chair: I have an indication to date of two amendments from the government. Are there any other amendments?

Mr Sterling: I believe the standing orders do not permit us to consider second reading and committee of the whole House on the same day. I am not denying unanimous consent. I am quite willing to give that, but should that not be called for or should a member raise an objection? I would just like to make certain it is done properly.

The First Deputy Chair: Without quoting the actual standing order, I believe that the standing orders now say that you can move to a second stage of a bill unless 12 members object. I did not see any members objecting. It would be standing order 77, “No bill shall pass unless it receives three readings and the date of each reading shall be certified on