Ontario Hansard — 7 December 1992 (35th Parliament, 2nd Session)

1992-12-07

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

December 7, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Members may be seated. I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, for the period covering January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1991.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RAINY RIVER DISTRICT COMMUNITY LEGAL CLINIC

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Ontarians should no longer be subjected to the second-rate principles of the Attorney General. First, he permitted a nominated NDP candidate, Emily Carasco, to remain chair of the independent and important Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee for many months. Now he also engages in conduct in contravention of the Premier's guidelines, which require ministers to perform in a manner to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government.

The Attorney General appointed Mr Nick Wihnan, his constituency assistant, his personal staff, to chair the board of the Rainy River District Community Legal Clinic. This is a board established to operate at arm's length from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the clinic funding committee. How can this be done when the minister's staff sits as chair of the board? Where do Mr Wihnan's loyalties lie: to the community board, which frequently has disagreements with the Ministry of the Attorney General, or with the Attorney General?

This is unspeakably blatant. These clinics are called independent clinics. How can the community board feel comfortable discussing points of contention with the ministry when the Attorney General's personal staff person is chair of the board? This is inexcusable conduct. It is arrogance. It is disdain for simple propriety.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Ontario is Canada's most important apple-producing province. Last year we accounted for over 48% of all apple sales in the country. Today, as we look at the apples that have been delivered to our desks and offices, it is fitting that we recognize the commitment to improving quality that apple growers of Ontario have made.

For a second year now, consumers can look for the Orchard Crisp brand identification when they buy their apples. Last year, after three years of research and planning, Ontario apple growers voluntarily committed themselves to new standards for Ontario apples. Apples marketed with an Ontario Orchard Crisp label must meet strict quality standards. These include colour and appearance standards for the Canada Fancy grade, plus a minimum pressure test. This test guarantees consumers a crisp apple year-round.

To ensure that the orchards are maintained, Orchard Crisp apples are spot-checked at the packer and retail levels by both the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission and government inspectors. The commission and growers have done a great job in quality improvement.

A number of growers and commission members are here with us today, after making their deliveries to our offices. Today, I want to recognize Don Bonter, vice-chair of the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, who's here with his son Brian and daughter Kristina. Howard Staff, a director of the commission, is here with his son Drew. Also present, are directors Tom O'Neil, Kirk Kemp and Bob Giffen. Thank you for taking the time to come here today and for reminding us again about the quality of Ontario's Orchard Crisp labelled apples.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Speaking along the same lines as the member for Simcoe East, members of the Legislature will have noticed the apples you received this afternoon. They were brought to you courtesy of Ontario's apple growers. And they're no ordinary apples: They are the crispest, firmest, juiciest apples Ontario growers can market, and they go by the name of Orchard Crisp.

Orchard Crisp is a brand identification and quality control program designed by Ontario growers. It is aimed at drawing attention to the quality and reasonable cost of 12 varieties of apples, including Red Delicious, Ida Red, Northern Spy and McIntosh, my favourite.

The program was launched last year by the growers themselves after three years of research. Growers and packers, who volunteer to be licensed to use the Orchard Crisp brand name, must ensure that their products meet strict quality standards, including size, colour, freshness and crispness.

I note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and this government fully support the apple industry and this initiative. Their Foodland Ontario staff have been particularly supportive through such things as shared-cost programs, public relations, point-of-purchase advertising and more.

I'm sure the members will enjoy these quality apples. Let them be a reminder of the fine food products this province has to offer Ontarians now and throughout the year.

It's that holiday season, and these apples aren't just good to eat like this. They make great apple pie, and with a slab of cheese or maybe a little whipped cream on top, they're a great dessert. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, we're not supposed to eat in the Legislature, and I know the Sergeant at Arms, Thomas Stelling, will be really upset, but I'm going to bite this one right here and now.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member is living dangerously.

PREMIER'S CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to comment again on Premier Rae and his standards. I've watched Premier Rae do things over the past few months that I totally disagree with, that were wrong and that I find indefensible. I'll mention just two things.

On September 16, Premier Rae's executive assistant wrote a letter on Mr Rae's letterhead to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a private development. This was clearly inappropriate, clearly wrong, and the Premier should have acknowledged that. Instead of that, he defended it, and none of us in this Legislature would support that. We all know it's wrong for the Premier to write to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The second thing I wanted to mention is that twice in the past year or so, members will know that the official opposition has been leaked some very insignificant government documents. What happened? The government called in, twice, the anti-racket squad of the OPP to investigate the official opposition's offices. This is very dangerous, the government using the state police to silence the opposition.

Again, I fully expected Premier Rae to say that this was wrong and to stop it. But he didn't. He promised that we would have an all-party legislative committee to look into it. When we set that up, the government members and the government ministers refused to appear before it.

What is going on with Premier Rae? I really, truly don't know what Premier Rae's standards are any more.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to bring the Minister of Community and Social Services up to date on the devastating impact of her lack of adequate funding for the special services at home program on the parents and the developmentally handicapped children in my community.

Recently, three families have been forced to give up in their attempts to care for their children at home, and they have abandoned these children to the Waterloo region family and children's services. At least four more families are seriously considering taking the same steps.

These three families have indicated that their children went out of control during adolescence. Eventually, they reached the breaking point, and they can no longer cope with these children now that the funding for weekend relief and in-home support has been cut. However, the greatest frustration for these families is the shortage of group homes for retarded children.

Minister, what are you going to do for these families? Instead of spending millions to wipe out private day care operators, you could have responded to a real and desperate need and helped these families struggling to care for their children in their own homes. What the people of this province need is less ideology and a greater commitment to providing the services which keep families together in their own homes.

I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to make this issue a priority and give the families of developmentally handicapped children what they need most this year for Christmas: the support to help them keep their children at home.

WOMEN IN ENGINEERING

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words to commemorate l'École polytechnique anniversary on behalf of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

Yesterday, on the actual anniversary of the tragedy, many groups and individuals remembered the deaths of 13 young female engineering students and one female staffer who died at l'École polytechnique three years ago. Our recognition of this loss has served to bring forward the resolve of many organizations to take specific action to make women more welcome in the engineering profession and to curb violence against women in society as a whole.

This year has brought such major accomplishments within the engineering profession nationally as the publication of a major study called More Than Just Numbers. To quote the study, "That single event in Canadian history jolted engineers and non-engineers alike into deep contemplation and open discussion about the very issues we were to deal with, namely, the status of women in the profession."

In this province, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario has already acted on some of those recommendations. The association has drafted national guidelines on gender equality which have recently been approved by the Canadian engineering profession, represented by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. There are other initiatives, but these are the highlights of 1992.

While each year we focus on the loss of 14 women who died, their memories are kept alive with the work now being done by concerned professional engineers in this province and in Canada. We encourage the continuation of this good work in their memory.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): St Catharines needs help. The Niagara region needs help. With the devastating news that GM intends to move forward the date of the closing of the foundry and to sell its axle operation, there were few smiling faces in the streets of our city this past weekend.

The Ontario government must employ all of its resources to rescue its modern, top-notch foundry from extinction, to gain new work for the efficient engine plant and to keep the excellent axle plant operating.

The move of the MTO to St Catharines and the MTR to Niagara Falls must be accelerated. Priority must be given to Niagara for the construction and repair of sewage treatment plans, water treatment plants, roads, bridges and essential public works.

The Niagara region, which has an unemployment rate hovering around 15% and is consistently among the highest in Ontario and Canada, must be declared an area eligible for special assistance and designated programs to spur economic growth and produce job opportunities similar to the area so specified under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today I will be tabling a petition with over 13,000 names on it. These petitions are in opposition to the placement of a superdump to house all of Peel's garbage on two sites within the town of Caledon.

The petition was circulated and collected by many individuals from Caledon, but four stand out for their extraordinary efforts. Elma Westlake, recently killed in a car crash this fall, Luigi Romano and Albert and Junta Hinrichs spent many hours collecting names for these petitions. These tireless community volunteers stood outside of stores explaining where the dumps would be going and why it was important to oppose this decision forced on the people of Caledon by the NDP government.

Albert and Junta Hinrichs from the town of Caledon today drove down from Caledon to hand-deliver additional petitions for me to present with the 13,000 other names. They are present in the members' gallery. I'd like to thank them for making a special trip to ensure that we have all the petitions.

I hope that Mrs Grier does not simply ignore these petitions, just as she has done for the thousands of others that have been presented by myself and other members of the opposition.

This government will no doubt have to make some difficult decisions before its mandate to govern the province of Ontario is taken away from it by the electorate. Until that happens, the NDP should always remember that people will remember how this decision is being steamrolled through. When their home or place of work hangs in the balance, it will take a very long time for the people of Caledon to forget the day the NDP came to ruin their town.

ANNIVERSARY OF FINNISH INDEPENDENCE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very pleased to inform members in the House that December 6 marked the 75th anniversary of the independence of Finland. The latter part of the 19th century was an important period of liberalization, during which time the Finnish people gained a sense of national pride and identity. It was at that time that the Finns established their national anthem, which is called Maamme.

We wish to recognize the many important contributions of the Finnish community in Canada, and especially to the province of Ontario. Suomi-Koti, the Toronto Finnish-Canadian Seniors Centre, now has a new addition to its 88-unit seniors' apartment building at 795 Eglinton Avenue East which I visited last week. The centre offers a rich cultural heritage and provides seniors with a sense of identity and a sense of pride.

It is my pleasure at this time to introduce Mrs Lea Pyykkonen, vice-chairperson of the Toronto Finnish- Canadian Seniors Centre, Suomi-Koti, who is sitting in the gallery today. Mrs Pyykkonen has made many important contributions to the Finnish community and has received recognition for her outstanding volunteer work.

It is a tribute to the Finnish community that they demonstrate integrity, honesty and courage. These qualities are so important to their culture that they have a word for it: "Sisu."

I urge all members in the House to join in the celebration of Finland's independence day.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery east, Mr Russell MacKinnon, MLA for the riding of Cape Breton West, Nova Scotia. Welcome to our chamber.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have to say that I very much regret the fact that neither the Premier nor the Attorney General is present in the House today to be able to respond to what we believe are serious questions about the administration of justice in this province. In their absence, I will direct my first question to the minister responsible for women's issues.

Last Friday, we learned that the Owen Sound courthouse, which is administered by the Attorney General's office, made a decision to make public Judi Harris's criminal record as well as confidential counselling information. What this means is that for $1 a page, anyone can obtain a copy of these documents. I'm sure the minister will agree that this is an absolutely incredible violation of Judi Harris's right to some degree of privacy.

I would ask you, as the minister responsible for advocating for the rights of women, what action have you taken, Minister, to raise this most recent and most unbelievable action with both the Premier and the Attorney General? If you have raised it with them, what response have they made to you? What do they say this means to Judi Harris and to the other victims of Grandview?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I share the member's concern. I have not had an opportunity yet to raise this with either the Attorney General or the Premier. I certainly intend to do so, because it is of great concern, not only to the young woman involved but in fact to all those who are involved as witnesses in a case or as accused in a case.

Mrs McLeod: I've become increasingly concerned. I know the minister understands the courage it takes for women to speak up and to make public the abuse they have suffered and I know the minister realizes how absolutely critical it is that women who do come forward be given confidence that the system is going to work for them and not against them. Yet we see the actions from this government are to suppress the 1976 report, which might have given some confirmation to the kinds of allegations these women have brought forward.

I was surprised -- I am surprised today in fact -- that the minister has not been actively discussing what happened last week with either the Premier or the Attorney General. I was surprised, when the Premier returned from his trip and I asked him about the Grandview report, to learn that he had not been made aware of the freedom of information commissioner's report, which very clearly said the report, that 1976 report, could be released. At that time the Premier said he would read the privacy commissioner's report and report back to this House on further steps he would take.

Again I ask the minister, as the advocate for the rights of the women involved in this situation, whether or not she knows what steps the Premier has taken; whether he has read the report; whether he has asked her for her recommendation; and whether he is now ready to follow the commissioner's recommendation that the 1976 report be released. Is the Premier ready to tell the Attorney General to stop suppressing that report?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I cannot speak for the Premier or for the Attorney General obviously. I will remind the member that the position taken in terms of appealing the decision of the privacy commissioner was on the ground that indeed the information might be of great value in terms of the prosecution of the cases, and that our real concern as a government, the concern of the Waterloo Regional Police, was that in fact this might interfere with the successful prosecution of cases in this matter. That, as far as I know, remains the concern that is there in the way of things.

I will tell the member that certainly I am concerned and I have consistently advocated on behalf of the Grandview people, including a number of meetings over the last week with the Attorney General and other people involved. It is not a question of not being concerned and not working very hard on their behalf; it is a question that the Attorney General has areas of responsibility that he alone can exercise.

Mrs McLeod: I can't help but feel the minister's response represents almost a tacit concurrence with what we see to be consistent and repeated efforts of different sorts that either silence or intimidate the women who have come forward with these allegations.

Let me just outline what these women, these victims, have experienced in these last few weeks. We've had the order from the privacy commissioner suppressed by the government. We have had the Premier's communications director and his closest adviser deliberately use his power to try and smear the reputation of one of the Grandview victims. We now have the confidential records of Judi Harris given out for $1 a page to anyone who asks for them by the same justice system that is supposed to be in place to help these victims.

We know that as a direct result of this government's actions more and more of these victims are reluctant to participate in any investigation for fear that they too will be publicly smeared by this government. We wonder how it is ever going to be possible to get to the bottom of the abuse of Grandview. Judi Harris herself has asked for a legislative inquiry.

Minister, again as the advocate for the rights of women, will you call upon your Premier? Will you demand an all-party legislative inquiry into the actions taken by John Piper during the course of his employment as the communications director in the Premier's office to understand how his actions in regard to Judi Harris reflect on the actions of this government and this Premier's office?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, I will not, because I believe the actions that have already been taken in terms of Mr Piper's removal from the Premier's office, the findings of the police situation, are what is required.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have met with the women from Grandview and have talked with them about the concerns we have around this issue. We are doing what we can with them to expedite matters and to give them more confidence in the process. I'm sure the Attorney General will be commenting on those additional plans in the very near future.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I am somewhat stymied in my ability to pursue the line of questioning in the absence of the Premier again, and it seems in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I wonder if you could tell us whether or not he is expected, since we didn't have any indication he'd be away today.

The Speaker: I can't help the member in that I'm never informed as to who will be in the chamber and who won't be.

Mrs McLeod: If the minister is coming, then I'm going to stand down the second lead question.

The Speaker: Third party?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'll stand down both my questions too, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: All right. Then we move to the official opposition with a question.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIR

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question's for the Minister of Energy. The minister has attempted to assure us that some order's about to be restored to the chaos at Ontario Hydro, and this in particular by his appointment of his new chair and CEO, Maurice Strong, who has agreed to serve the good people of this province for the miserly wage of some $425,000 a year.

We've heard some disturbing news, and I want the minister's assurance that what I'm hearing is completely without foundation and there's no basis for it in fact. In particular, we've heard that after turning down the job three times, Mr Strong is now agreeing to take it on condition that he work only three weeks out of four as chair and CEO. Apparently, he requires one week out of four to attend to his personal affairs and business interests.

Mr Minister, can you assure the people of this province that this is not true? Can you assure us that your choice for chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro will work full-time and not three-quarter time or anything less than full-time to earn his salary of $425,000?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The member raises one of a series of interesting questions that have been floating around in the rumour mill for the last number of weeks, so I'm pleased for the opportunity to deal with it. Mr Strong has been appointed as the full-time chair of Ontario Hydro, and it's the government's expectation that he will be the full-time chair of Ontario Hydro.

Mr McGuinty: I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will understand why I raise that question, because neither this minister nor his Premier has the best track record when it comes to appointing chairs in this province. We understood that we had the last full-time chair for some five years, and he left after 16 months.

Let me tell you what else we're hearing, Mr Speaker. We are hearing that this minister has agreed to give Mr Strong a pension for life valued at 70% of his salary after five years of employment with Hydro. That's a minimum $295,000 a year for life. That's $295,000 to be added to Hydro's costs and paid for by the people of this province. I want the minister to confirm that this is not the case, that Mr Strong is not going to be given this kind of pension benefit or anything near it.

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess the member's second question just points to how ridiculous some of the things that have been floating around are, because the proposal is absolutely preposterous. Mr Strong has been given pension benefits the same as anyone else. They will accumulate at a rate, as called for by the pension plan, of 2% per year of service.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the third party.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The minister is now here, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Okay, the Leader of the Opposition.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question, in the absence of the Premier, is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As we're all aware, the Ontario government's agent general in New York has resigned. The government's one-line press release stated simply that Mr Masters resigned from his post in order to return to the private sector, yet it is no secret that Mr Masters was accused last summer of sexually harassing women under his supervision and was placed on indefinite leave at that time.

Minister, I would ask you, as the minister responsible for that office, as Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, what investigations have been carried out by your government to probe these allegations, over what time period were these investigations carried out and what did the investigations reveal?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that question to the Deputy Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that a Premier has the ability to refer to any minister, and that a minister has an opportunity to refer to another minister if the area in question is not within the jurisdiction and responsibility of that minister, but I do not understand how the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology can refer this question to the Deputy Premier.

The Speaker: While I'm not about to guess why the minister would refer any question, what I can tell the member is that in the absence of the Premier the Deputy Premier assumes that particular responsibility. The minister has the opportunity to refer a question to the Premier, and in the absence of the Premier he has referred it to the Deputy Premier.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I suspect that the leader of the official opposition knows full well that the question she asked touches on the employment relationship between government, as the employer, and an employee and that under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act I really am prohibited from engaging in any discussion of a personal nature. I'd be very surprised if the leader of the official opposition isn't very much aware of those provisions of the act, which I believe are both sections 21 and 42.

Mrs McLeod: In this case, the allegations were not kept private. The allegations and the indefinite leave of the agent general were very much in the public eye and that's why this continues to be a matter of public concern.

I would suggest that it is common knowledge as well that last summer the government hired the Toronto law firm of Tory, Tory, DesLauriers and Binnington to investigate these particular allegations of sexual harassment, at considerable cost to the taxpayers. Yet only a few months before, in March 1992, this same government came out with a Management Board directive setting out very clear guidelines for the investigation of sexual harassment allegations.

I take the Deputy Premier back to his response, that this was a matter between the government and an employee, and I would ask, are the procedures that the government has so recently established absolutely useless for dealing with workplace harassment, and if not, why did the government order in this particular case a special investigation instead of using the government's mechanism?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I should clear up one of the things that the leader of the official opposition said in her

preamble. The government never disclosed any aspect of the situation whatsoever. It was not the government that revealed any allegations, nor were they discussed by government. We have followed the rules of the act as passed by this Legislature, so I don't think it's appropriate for the leader of the official opposition to ask us to violate one of the very laws that was passed by this Legislature.

Mrs McLeod: It is nevertheless a matter of public record that Mr Masters was placed on indefinite leave because of allegations that had been brought forward. I would also suggest that the Premier himself has often said that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done.

To me, that means that clear investigative and reporting procedures and mechanisms should be followed in every case and applied to everyone across the board with no exceptions. Yet in this case the government has not only failed to apply its own clear Management Board directives as to how it will deal with such situations, but it has also refused now to disclose the results of the special investigation that was ordered. As a result, all that we have are rumours and speculation. If Mr Masters was found to be innocent of these allegations, he should be exonerated.

If not, both the public and the individuals who made the allegations should be informed so that a clear message will be sent that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.

I would ask the Deputy Premier if he does not agree that his Premier's continued silence on the issue casts serious doubts on the fairness of this entire process and everybody involved in it, and if he will not now break that silence.

Hon Mr Laughren: If he or I did break the silence, which the leader of the official opposition would like us to do, we would not only be breaking the silence, we would be breaking the law, and I don't think that the leader of the official opposition would approve of that after the fact. She would perhaps prod us into it before, but condemn us afterwards, so I think the leader of the official opposition is not playing very straight with us here.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act says quite clearly that an institution shall not use personal information in its custody, that an institution shall not disclose personal information in its custody. Then it goes on to make some exceptions, but I don't think the exceptions would apply, and if the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I would challenge the leader of the official opposition. If she wants to bring forth to this House a private member's bill that would gut the protections under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, then I would challenge her to do that so we can see exactly where she does stand on the protection of privacy aspects of this bill.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier and the fact that the minister responsible for Mr Masters refuses and doesn't wish to answer, I'll go to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. Mr Deputy Premier, the freedom of information act was not intended to be used as a secrecy act, as a coverup act for the government or for the employer.

What I would like to know, Mr Deputy Premier, since you have been put on the hook to answer for this -- and I don't believe that's fair but I guess that's life in politics if everybody else wants to duck it -- I want to ask you, Mr Deputy Premier, why did Carl Masters resign? Was he asked to resign? Was there any aspect of any offer, settlement, that was made on behalf of the government to Mr Masters? If so, I would want to know why that would be the case. Or if he has resigned all on his own, can you explain to me why the taxpayers who paid his salary, why the taxpayers who paid for the investigation are not now entitled to know the results of that investigation?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party is flanked by two lawyers, and I would ask him to consult them --

Interjections.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm only the best in Parry Sound. That doesn't say anything.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- two of the best lawyers in his front row. I would ask the leader of the third party to think seriously about what he's asking because he really is, in my opinion -- I am not trained in the law, but I did read

section 21 in particular and

section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It seems to me that as to what he is asking, if we were to respond in the way he would like us to respond, I believe we would be breaking that very law that was passed in this assembly.

I would be interested in the leader of the third party indicating whether or not he has a different reading of that act.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer and the government members can laugh all they want but I'll tell you this: Mr Masters is not laughing and no Ontarians are laughing. More important than that, women in this province are not laughing; they are not laughing. Judi Harris is not laughing. Other women who have had dealings with your government are not laughing. Bonnie Seguin up in Cochrane North is not laughing about how she has been treated by the agencies and by this government.

Mr Deputy Premier, given the fact that you feel you cannot tell us whether you asked Mr Masters to leave -- I don't think that breaks any confidential act, according to the two top expert lawyers in my front row that you asked me to consult with -- I have to assume that you did. The Black Business and Professional Association has called your government's silence on the issue irresponsible. Until the government answers or puts itself in a position where it can answer questions about the departure of Carl Masters, people are obviously left to speculate.

In the newspapers and in the public's mind, Mr Masters is perceived now as guilty, without any statement, without any trial, without anything being said by the government. You have put him into that position. Treasurer, this is the Premier's appointment; this is the NDP appointment to this job. It was the NDP that decided it should call in and have taxpayers pay for a special investigation. It is you, your Premier, your government, his office that decided Mr Masters should be paid while that investigation was ongoing. The taxpayers and the people of this province --

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: -- including the friends of Mr Masters, have a right to know. When are they going to know?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I don't think I should have to say this, but the member knows that nobody in this assembly takes sexual harassment lightly, which he implied in the

preamble to his question. I think I shouldn't have to say that, but because of the way he put his question I feel I must. I simply reiterate to the leader of the third party that unless there's a different understanding of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- I remind him of the second part of that title, the protection of privacy aspect of the act -- unless there's a different

interpretation of that act than I'm led to believe is the correct one and the one that we should follow, then there will certainly be no further information coming from me.

Mr Harris: Mr Deputy Premier, when you say "from me," you allege that there may be, coming from somebody else. I thought that because you were empowered on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who your government didn't feel was competent enough to answer these types of questions, and empowered then by the Premier, who chooses to be somewhere else on this particular day, that you were empowered to answer. Are you now telling us we should wait till somebody with a higher authority comes back?

If you are truly empowered, I believe that not only has Mr Masters been done an injustice by this silence, but most importantly of all, you are doing the women who made the allegations a very serious injustice.

You say I shouldn't conclude from your joking and laughing that you don't treat sexual harassment seriously or that you think it's a joking matter. You obviously by example with Mr Piper, you obviously by example with Bonnie Seguin, you obviously by example after example after example are not treating it with the seriousness it deserves. You're not treating it with the seriousness that women are asking you to treat it with. You are now once again sending a signal out to women who have been victims that your government does not take the issue seriously.

I ask you, as Deputy Premier, since others have not recognized this, other than the Premier's office, do you not now recognize that the signal, the message you're sending out to women today is that maybe they're better off keeping quiet?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party has crossed the line and is being patently unfair in his allegations that we're not taking this matter seriously or that we don't take sexual harassment seriously. That is really an outrageous accusation. I think it does more to erode his credibility than it does to anybody on this side of the House.

The only thing I cannot take seriously in this whole matter is the advice of the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party that we should violate the protection of privacy act that was passed by this very assembly.

TAX CREDITS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We will come back to how you are selectively interpreting the freedom of information act so that you don't have to disclose some of the things your government is doing, Mr Treasurer and Deputy Premier. However, I want to ask a question to you, sir, as Treasurer, as one responsible for taxation and what not, about the case involving Mrs Ellen Stones.

Treasurer, Mrs Ellen Stones passed away. Her estate received a cheque to do with the sales tax and property tax credit. They made inquiries as to what they should do with the cheque, believing that the estate was entitled to that rebate for the portion of the year that she lived, that that would be fair since the cheque was for the living and not for those who had passed on. However, they and the family were informed that it was not the case; that the entire cheque should be returned, for the whole year, which they have done.

I would ask you, Treasurer, whether you believe that is the correct

interpretation or whether in fact the estate of Mrs Ellen Stones ought not to have been entitled to that property tax and sales tax rebate for the portion of the year that she was living.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): At first blush it would seem that the leader of the third party is implying that at least part of the cheque should have been allowed to have been cashed. I don't know, to tell you the truth, where that stands, and I don't know any of the details of the situation. If the leader of the third party would send me the information, I'll certainly see what happened there and see to what extent any rules have been broken or whether it's policy or not, but quite frankly I don't know at this point.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Treasurer; I would appreciate your thoughts on that as a policy. However, Mrs Stones's case then carries on, because she died four and a half years ago, in 1988, and the ruling at that time was that she was not entitled to anything for that portion of the year she was living. You would then expect that the family would have been rather surprised, her son in particular, when four and a half years later they received an application for a property tax grant and sales tax grant, much to their chagrin, after having lost the ruling four and a half years ago, and that now receiving this information would have been a little bit of a shock to this family.

I wonder if you can explain to me how this could happen: nothing for four and a half years and all of a sudden an application goes out to the estate, the family of Mrs Ellen Stones, and her son, very upset, writes quite a strong letter back explaining that his mother passed away four and a half years ago. How could this possibly happen that these applications would be sent out; what would trigger this one? Obviously I think you'd be concerned, because if one is triggered, perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands are triggered.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member is absolutely correct. I would be concerned and I am concerned and I do look forward to having that information sent over and I'll pursue it as quickly as I can.

Mr Harris: You can imagine, Treasurer, the chagrin of this family, after having expressed in pretty strong terms their distaste at having received these forms and having written back, that the response back from the government, which I will send over to you -- they've asked me to return it to you -- is a cheque for $50.

The actual sales tax cheque gets issued. You complain because four and a half years ago your mother died, and then you get these forms to fill out. You send the forms back saying, "What is going on?" and now the response from your government is, "Oh, here's the cheque for the $50 for the sales tax credit." If a page will come, I will give the cheque back to the Treasurer, because certainly the estate of this family has no need of a cheque for their mother, who passed away four and a half years ago.

But, Treasurer, it brings up the question of your government's ability to manage the affairs of this province. It brings up the question of your vast overspending. We now know that persons deceased for several years can get a health card just sent to them through the mail. "Go ahead; now that card is available for anybody to use." But now, in addition to that, you can get actual cheques sent to you even after you've passed away four and a half years before.

Treasurer, you are talking now about hiking taxes. I want to tell you that the people in this province are fed up with the way you're managing the money you do have, the way you're throwing it away, the way you are mismanaging program after program after program. How could your government possibly have sent out, in response to this request, a cheque for $50 to somebody who was deceased for four and half years?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know how the cheque could have been sent out and I'm not justifying it in any way whatsoever. I would just ask the leader of the third party not to read too much into one incident.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Health. It's related to a press story that appeared in the Toronto Star over a month ago with respect to doctors repaying almost $7 million in overbilling.

That

article indicated that 119 doctors had repaid these moneys. As I said, this was overbilling over a three-year period. A significant number of those doctors had overbilled in excess of $50,000. This matter was obviously drawn to the attention of the Medical Review Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario by your ministry. We're not sure whether any fines were assessed in respect of these matters.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, if you have any concerns about this process, these numbers and the fact that there appears to be no ability to do a forensic review to see if there was an intent to defraud the public in respect of any of these matters. I'm wondering if you're satisfied with the process, and if not, if you intend to pursue any changes.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): The issue of forensic auditing and of verification of billings is one that I think has been troubling a lot of us in the Legislature as we've looked at the problems that stem from the original move from OHIP numbers to individual health cards and the issuance of those cards, our ability to verify and verify billings.

There are a number of things we have been doing to move to a system where we would be better able to do verification and forensic follow-up. We have instituted a verification unit, we have added more staff to that area, and we have informed the medical community that we are moving to complete the development of a system of machine-readable input relationship of billings between doctors' offices and the ministry, so that we would be in a technological position to do better verification than the manual system we have had in the past.

Mr Runciman: I'm not sure if better verification -- the minister's sort of couching this. I guess I'm concerned that we're talking about significant moneys going into the OHIP system.

I know the auditor, in his last report, expressed concern about welfare ripoffs. We know this is a very difficult time for many people in Ontario society, close to a million people receiving social assistance. We're talking about a group that is perhaps the wealthiest group of individuals in society. When you take a look at the number of doctors in this province, the urban doctors -- and these are OHIP figures -- averaging 311 patients and billing $250,000 for themselves, $250,000 for lab tests and other matters, I think there are legitimate concerns out there about what's happening within the system.

I would ask the minister if she would not consider, at least with the 119 who were reported in the Toronto Star, asking the police to go in and do a forensic audit to determine if there was, in respect to those individuals anyway, any intent to defraud the public purse.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd be glad to give consideration to that and get back to the member.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, last week I was meeting with co-op leaders in Cambridge. They included representatives of the Highland Homes, Thorne View, Max Saltzman and Grandview co-ops. They're concerned about the level of member participation in long-term decision-making affecting their housing.

Minister, it is a fact of property management that some important renovations and repairs -- fixing a roof, for example, or replacing plumbing -- call for large one-time expenditures. However, current operating agreements with the Ministry of Housing do not allow co-ops to budget for more than a year for major-item expenditures.

Surely, Minister, if empowerment and control of decision-making is to be entrusted to co-ops, adjustments must be made to allow co-ops to independently plan over several years for major-item expenditures. Has the minister considered any method or means by which co-ops can plan and retain responsibility for the implementation of major-item expenditures?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): In fact, the current agreements with co-ops not only allow but encourage co-ops to undertake longer-term planning for maintenance and renovation purposes. That's by way of replacement funds, which the ministry provides in its funding stream to non-profit housing groups. We certainly encourage members of co-ops to participate in the decision-making that goes on around such items as long-term repairs and renovations.

Mr Farnan: Minister, I hear from my constituents that in fact you have placed a moratorium on replacement reserve funds and to some extent have removed the ability to make their own decisions regarding when and what work needs to be done.

Minister, the leaders of the cooperative movement and the members of co-ops in my community are appealing for greater involvement, greater power in the decision-making process, and there is a sense within the cooperative movement that to some extent the ministry is playing Big Brother and not allowing those leaders to have that empowerment and that decision-making role within the co-op.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If I could take members of the Legislature back to the housing policy framework consultation which went on and to our response, which was the document called Consultation Counts, they will find there our plans to make sure that in the future there is more independence of decision-making by leaders in the non-profit housing groups, including co-ops, around their financial planning.

It is the case, as the member points out, that during this fiscal year we have frozen the amount of money that we flow -- in fact, we put zero into replacement reserves of co-ops around the province, but we are working with the co-ops on a long-term operating agreement.

I expect that agreement to be signed, sealed and delivered by the end of this year, God willing, and we will have a framework that is both flexible from their point of view and also provides us with the kind of control and accountability mechanisms we need to ensure that moneys are being well spent.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Provincial Auditor's report confirmed that Community and Social Services has lost millions of dollars due to fraud.

This is nothing new. Bill 154 raises issues, including fraud, that cannot be resolved without dealing with the problems found in the auditor's report. There must be an agreement between financial institutions and the government.

Last Tuesday I met with a representative of the Canadian Bankers Association. Financial institutions are waiting for a government decision regarding a guarantee for their reimbursement of fraudulent government cheques. This is not an unreasonable request on the part of the banks. The federal government has been reimbursing fraudulent cheques for years. This is a cheaper option than paying the price of fraud.

We now have proof that this government's policy of procrastination and postponement simply leads to more fraud and more dollars lost. Why is the provincial treasury refusing to guarantee its cheques, and what is your ministry's response to the treasury's lack of cooperation?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Indemnification of the banks in terms of welfare cheques is certainly one of the measures I have talked about in this House a number of times in terms of dealing with the issue that this member has raised again and again around cheque cashing institutions. It is certainly one of the many methods in which we are working to prevent and detect fraud.

I would remind the member that a number of measures have already been taken that have gone a long way to redressing the issues the auditor mentioned, and the auditor himself indicated that the ministry had been taking a lot of action.

I will continue to consider indemnification as one of those measures, but we have not achieved a negotiation of that as yet on the provincial level; the member's quite right.

Mr Morin: Minister, when I look at the report, what it tells me, what it tells you, is that there's a gaping hole on the side of your ship which is getting bigger and bigger every day. If you don't fix it, your ship is going to sink.

I realize that policies cannot be implemented overnight, but before policies come decisions. Without decisions, there cannot be coherent, effective policies. The problem in this case is that too few decisions are made. Sure, we all wish problems would simply go away, but you, Minister, are not in the position to engage in wishful thinking. You must deal with reality.

The fact is that your ministry is responsible for the most vulnerable people in our society, and it can no longer meet its financial obligations. No one is asking for the moon, but we do expect consistent policies. We expect you to use whatever means are at your disposal to effectively comply with your mandate. The goals and policies aimed at helping low-income persons are being sidetracked by considerations we can only guess at, but the results are very clear: Millions of dollars are lost, vanished in thin air. Administrative change and increased staff do not suffice. How do you explain such discrepancies, and who is in charge?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have already acted, as I told the member in answer to his first question, to plug many of the holes that were identified by the auditor in the report, which was, after all, on the 1991-92 year. A great deal of action has been taken in the meantime, not the least of which is increasing the number of eligibility review officers and increasing the number of direct-deposit cheques, which has greatly reduced the kind of fraud that was identified by false replacement cheques and that sort of thing by the auditor. We continue to work at the reform of the entire system, which is directed at resolving many of the issues the auditor raised.

I would also say to the member that if we had the kind of capability in this country, in this province, of correcting fraud at the income tax level or at the employer tax level that was identified by the federal and provincial auditors, it would come way ahead of the very minor levels of fraud that are in the social assistance system. It is really unfair for the opposition to continually define this as the major problem, when a much higher dollar amount was identified as fraud by employers in the employer tax system.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week the Provincial Auditor reported that the province has a $3-billion problem related to our sewage treatment plants. The report states that in 1990, 25% of sewage treatment plants did not comply with provincial guidelines for one or more substances such as phosphorus, suspended solids and biological oxygen demand. A 1987 study indicated that nearly one half of all Ontario sewage treatment plants did not meet the standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

But what is really alarming is the statement by the auditor that, "No major improvements have been undertaken since that time." Could the Minister of the Environment respond to the concerns of the auditor of Ontario and tell us what her plans are for upgrading the province's sewage treatment plants?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Those plans fall under three categories. Of course, there are some sewage treatment plants that need to be rebuilt and need to be upgraded; primary responsibility for that lies with municipalities, which operate, I think, about 75% of the sewage treatment plants within the province. We are looking at reviewing our grant programs in order to make sure that provincial grants go to those where in fact the environmental problems are the worst, and we can begin to look at those priorities.

Second, we look at all optimization of the functioning of the existing plants. Water conservation plays a very major

part in that, because if we can conserve water, we are putting less stress on the sewage treatment plants and avoiding the need to rebuild and expand those sewage treatment plants.

Last but by no means least, we hope by the end of this year that about 70% of the population of the province will be in municipalities covered by the sewer use bylaw, a bylaw that municipalities are implementing which regulates the flow of industrial waste into sewage treatment plants.

Mr Cousens: If the minister had a comprehensive policy that would begin to deal with the issue, certainly the auditor wouldn't have highlighted it as the problem it is today, and certainly the storm water problems we have now in the greater Toronto area wouldn't also be a problem. We've got a $3-billion problem that just isn't going away.

I have a solution I'd like to ask you to comment on. Municipalities have a major problem trying to face up to the costs for them just to maintain their own systems. The auditor claims that of the $3 billion needed for sewage treatment facilities and for the upgrading that's required, one third of it should be paid for by your ministry under current funding arrangements with municipalities. Also, I have in my hand a letter from a Mr Steve Placek, outlining ways to save money and improve the quality of service with respect to sewage treatment plants. He talks about new equipment, new procedures, new guidelines, new value engineering and looking for innovative ways of solving the problem.

What I'm suggesting, Madam Minister, is that when an independent consultant can come up with a number of suggestions and when in fact municipalities are waiting for direction from you, would you as Minister of the Environment agree to set up a provincial symposium to bring together engineers, financial planners, municipal representatives to discuss ways of solving Ontario's $3-billion sewage treatment problem?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the honourable member that I'm not familiar with the letter he has, but from his brief outline, it sounds like exactly what I'm putting under the catch-all phrase "optimization," making sure we get the best possible use out of the existing facilities by upgrading them, by the certification and training of the operators, by making sure that we try to deflect storm water, by detention tanks such as has happened in Metropolitan Toronto or by storm drainage plans that deflect storm water away from the sewage treatment plants, because storm water has certainly been one of the major causes of the overflow of the sewage treatment plants.

With respect to the kind of symposium that he is suggesting, let me say to the honourable member that those kinds of discussions occur all the time under a variety of auspices: public works associations, conservation authorities, my ministry, municipalities. We are in constant dialogue with the industry, with the municipalities, with the environmental groups, about how to upgrade sewage treatment in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Health with the response to a question asked earlier.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): Further response to the member for Leeds-Grenville: With respect to the cases he was referring to, which were over a three-year period, I'm informed by the ministry that the medical review committee had in fact reviewed those and requested repayment. Through their experience, their guidelines and their precedents, they determine whether or not they believe these are cases that have any fraudulent nature to them.

In the cases that he specifically referred to, none of the repayments ordered by the medical review committee were for fraudulent claims. Where that is the case, or where it's believed to be the case, it is in fact referred to the anti-rackets branch of the Ontario Provincial Police. That happens on a regular basis from the medical review committee, when it feels by its guidelines that there may be cases of fraud involved.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This is unusual, to say the least, getting another answer to a question posed earlier today. I'm not sure about the specifics of what the minister is saying to us today -- I'll have to take a look at it more closely -- but I would like to pose a question in response to what she has said. She's indicating that the anti-rackets squad has gone in on cases where there's suspicion of fraudulent activity. Can she indicate to us today, over the past three-year period or perhaps over the past five-year period, how many charges have been laid as a result of those kinds of investigations, and how many investigations have occurred?

Hon Ms Lankin: To the best of my knowledge, there have been six that have involved doctors in multiple cases of requests for repayment where fraud was suspected and where investigations ensued and charges were laid.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Treasurer. Treasurer, last week I and the member for Mississauga West asked the Minister of Revenue a question on the new sales tax imposed by you last October 1. You now pay sales tax on the Red Book value of a used vehicle or the actual selling price, whichever is higher.

Treasurer, this is a tax that affects many people, such as students and the unemployed, who purchase used cars and do so by private sale. Your Minister of Revenue was unaware of the impact of this discriminatory tax. Will you commit today to amend this unfair tax to allow people to pay tax only on the amount they paid for the used car and not on the higher, unknown Red Book value?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer): I've been approached by a number of members of my caucus, who shall go unnamed, about this very problem. I can tell the --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I wouldn't buy a used car from any of you.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole will let me finish my answer, I can tell the member opposite that we are looking at that matter now to see if there are any changes that could be made that would be appropriate. But I'm not announcing here today --

Mrs Caplan: That's as good as an announcement.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry; the member for Oriole wanted to complete the sentence for me.

I didn't want to leave the impression that I was making an announcement today that we are making a change, but we are looking at it because there has been some concern expressed by a fairly significant number of people.

Mr Offer: Last week it was brought to the attention of the Minister of Revenue that an auction was held last October 29 by the Ministry of Transportation. At the auction there were examples of retail sales tax paid on the sales price of the car and not on the higher Red Book value.

I've now been provided further information on that same auction. Item number 36 was a 1987 Chevrolet K5 Blazer. The bid price was $4,900; the Red Book value was $10,125. The retail sales tax paid: zero. Item number 39: a 1988 GMC Sierra Classic, 1500 Suburban. The bid price, or the sale price: $3,600. The Red Book value: $10,625. The retail sales tax paid: zero.

Treasurer, remember, this is a secret tax. You shake your head, but the public is generally unaware of a Red Book valuation of a car they have purchased. This tax hurts many people: students, the unemployed. I ask you again today: They need your commitment so that the people who legitimately and honestly negotiate the sale of a used car will only pay the retail sales tax on the price negotiated and not on the higher, unknown Red Book valuation, which they have no idea about. We need your commitment and they need your commitment to that change today.

Mrs Caplan: That's only fair, Floyd. It's only fair.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Oriole is once again answering the question for me, and I wouldn't want that to happen because she knows not of what she speaks.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try again, Mr Speaker. When the government introduced this particular tax, it was not the first time in the history of the civilized world that such a tax had been introduced. It's in other jurisdictions; it's working in other jurisdictions. This is the first time in Ontario, you're absolutely correct.

It's time that some responsibility was brought to the retail sales of used cars and in particular the whole curbsider operation, which the Liberals, when they were in office, chose to ignore, for what reason I can only guess. I can tell the member opposite that it is our intention to make sure that this tax works properly so that some people who pay their tax legitimately aren't doing so while others get off scot-free and pay no tax at all. That's simply not fair.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, your ministry has been mailing out letters to all Ontario corporations, profit and non-profit, telling them they must file a corporation statement and in doing so they must pay a $50 fee for a profit corporation and $25 for a non-profit corporation.

Madam Minister, I've had many constituents of mine and, I'm sure, many constituents of yours call and write letters, telling me this new hidden tax is ill timed, and they have resented the confrontational style of your letter. Can you tell this House today if you intend to make this an annual fee?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As I've said in the House before, prior to 1976, Ontario did require all corporations to file at that time. The province decided, in 1976, to remove this requirement. What happened as a result of that -- and may I add that every other province, including the federal government, requires this filing to be done -- is that many, many corporations did not file the information.

As a result, the file system that we have in place is badly out of order, badly out of date. Those of the public who depend on this file to be accurate and up to date have been in fact sadly led astray in some instances. So it's very, very important that we do as other provinces do and make sure that this filing is kept up to date for the benefit of the people who use the system.

Mr Tilson: My first question was, are you going to be making this an annual fee? You've given this answer several weeks ago, which you just did. My question was, are you going to make this an annual fee? You have yet to answer that.

Madam Minister, when the help line to your offices is phoned, your office is telling businesses that the Legislature will vote on whether or not this is an annual tax and that that vote will take place some time next spring -- that's what your office is telling people who phone in -- and that they should write their MPPs if they want them to vote against this annual fee. That's what your staff are telling the people of this province.

Will the minister stop passing the buck and make a commitment today that she will bring forward legislation to allow proper debate of this new source of revenue and not simply pass another regulation, as she did this past year, to make this hidden tax annual?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, let me say again that this is not a hidden tax. It's a very clear indication that we in fact need to have our files updated. It costs $50 for corporations and $25 for non-profit organizations.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It's a tax grab. Why do you need money?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for York Mills, come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: For the benefit of the many, many people out there who are using this system so that they can do the research they need, and that includes not only lawyers and not only corporations and banks but also small cooperatives, labour organizations --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: All kinds of people use this system and it is very important that the system be kept up to date as every other province is making sure its system is kept up to date.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR83

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): On behalf of Mr Cooke, I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, a private bill to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East may be introduced and given first reading and that the bill be considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on December 9, 1992.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the role of police is to uphold and enforce the laws duly established by elected representatives;

"Whereas the police are empowered to protect society and maintain the peace;

"Whereas the government has an obligation to provide adequate means for the police to fulfil their duty;

"Whereas society has the responsibility to support police in this duty,

"Be it resolved that we reject the new use-of-force regulations and humbly pray and call upon this House to stay implementation of this legislation."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition signed by some 1,300 people, residents of the province of Ontario, to which I've also affixed my signature as a member.

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the management of Ontario Hydro has not taken concrete actions to restructure its organization for increased efficiency or in light of present-day economics to reduce overheads and capital requirements to realistic and necessary levels; and

"Whereas the management of Ontario Hydro continues to expand its transmission facilities without due regard to sustainable development, economics and health and environmental concerns of the citizens of Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Order Ontario Hydro to freeze expenditures for the 1993 fiscal year at 1992 levels and to immediately begin working on a business plan that will concentrate on cutting overheads instead of raising prices to put the organization back on a firm financial footing;

"Authorize an independent study of all generation and transmission expansion programs, and in particular report on the future electrical consumption needs of the province: it should assess taking into consideration the high level of environmental damage, the economics of building transmission lines and buying and transmitting electrical power from northern Manitoba; it should fully explore the use of local independent power projects and other energy generation sources as an alternative to long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines; recommendations for real conservation programs that will reduce the need for increased high-voltage power transmission should be an important part of this study;

"Order Ontario Hydro to develop a new plan that will make the present transmission corridors between Sudbury and Toronto capable of providing dependable electrical energy for this geographical area of Ontario for the next 50 years. This will result in lower costs and less environmental damage to Ontario."

A very recognizable and well worthy petition, Mr Speaker. As I said, over 1,300 residents of the province of Ontario have affixed their signatures, and I have as well.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition on the letterhead of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario and I'd like to acknowledge the hard work it has put into this. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene,

"And controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatment with penicillin, to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug,

"We, the undersigned" -- and there are about 170 of them -- "call upon the ministries of Health and of Community and Social Services to ensure free provision of the drug to all affected children."

I have affixed my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 13,000 signatures from the town of Caledon. It's a petition I referred to in my statement earlier today.

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon; and

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste where a 'willing host' community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste;

"And further that the government of Ontario remove sites C-34B and C-48 from consideration for the following reasons:

(1) It is prime agricultural land and would be lost for ever to a dump; (2) the above sites are close to the town of Bolton; (3) these sites are all in the Humber Valley watershed; (4) artesian wells and all water resources are exposed to danger if a dump comes on any one of these sites, wells that supply Bolton and the surrounding area.

"We oppose any dump in Caledon."

I have affixed my signature to this petition containing 13,000 names. I will need the assistance of at least two pages.

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

They're from St Catharines, Vineland, Jordan, Fenwick, and I affix my signature to this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a petition signed by several hundred people. It's with respect to the Ministry of Transportation and it reads as follows:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we support graduated licensing for new drivers."

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition here and it reads as follows:

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we support graduated licensing for new drivers."

This is signed by hundreds of people, and I too affix my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by residents of Middlesex county who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of arbitrator John Brant because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings, there are other and better alternatives available, it awards far too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London and it will jeopardize agricultural land, the county of Middlesex, the viability of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I have an additional petition which I would like to present, and it reads:

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we support graduated licensing for new drivers."

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the management of Ontario Hydro has not taken concrete actions to restructure its organization for increased efficiency or, in the light of present-day economics, to reduce overheads and capital requirements to realistic and necessary levels; and

"Whereas the management of Ontario Hydro continues to expand its transmission facilities without due regard to sustainable development, economics, and health and environmental concerns of the citizens of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Authorize an independent study of all generation and transmission expansion programs and, in particular, report on the future electrical consumption needs of the province. It should assess, taking into consideration the high level of environmental damage, the economics of building transmission lines and buying and transmitting electrical power from northern Manitoba. It should fully explore the use of local, independent power projects and other energy generation sources as an alternative to long-distance high-voltage transmission lines.

Recommendations for real conservation programs that will reduce the need for increased high-voltage power transmission should be an important part of this study.

It has been signed by a number of concerned consumers of the Network of Concerned Energy Consumers of the province of Ontario, and I've affixed my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and recreational vacation land, these areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities. The farm families in these areas have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump;

"Whereas most of the people of Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water and a dump would threaten their clean supply of water;

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice-fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe's health provides a strong draw of tourists to fish year-round;

"Whereas the affects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the community;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and to turn it into Metro's and York's megadump;

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew its efforts to seek and entertain alternatives, like waste reprocessing, to landfill and implement progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I affix my name to this.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a concern in Bruce county and neighbouring communities that the Rae government will refuse to do rehabilitation and general maintenance work required to keep Bruce A functioning efficiently; and

"Whereas the detailed technical report prepared by informed and objective people has already shown that the maintenance and rehabilitation work is not only cost-effective but profit-generating; and

"Whereas there is concern in Bruce county and neighbouring areas that Bob Rae will circumvent that study by using non-objective people to restudy the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation and maintenance expenditures;

"Therefore, the undersigned request that the Legislature accept the list of signatures on the attached document addressed to Bob Rae and require the Premier to respond directly to them, indicating that he will guarantee a fair assessment of Bruce A maintenance and rehabilitation plans."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the management of Ontario Hydro has not taken concrete actions to restructure its organization for increased efficiency or, in light of present day economics, to reduce overheads and capital requirements to realistic and necessary levels; and

"We, the undersigned, petition the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Order Ontario Hydro to freeze expenditures for the 1993 fiscal year at 1992 levels and to immediately begin working on a business plan that will concentrate on cutting overheads instead of raising prices, to put the organization back on a firm financial footing;

"Authorize an independent study of all generation and transmission expansion programs and in particular report on the future electrical consumption needs of the province. It should assess, taking into consideration the high-level environmental damage, the economics of building transmission lines and buying and transmitting electrical power from northern Manitoba. It should fully explore the use of local, independent power projects and other energy generation sources as an alternative to long-distance high-voltage transmission lines. Recommendations for real conservation programs that will reduce the need for increased high-voltage power transmission should be an important part of this study;

This joins the hundreds of petitions presented earlier by the member for Parry Sound, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS

On motion by Ms Churley, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les alcools.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister, do you wish to make any comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes. I am pleased to introduce for first reading a bill to amend the Liquor Control Act. The changes I am proposing will allow the government to complete its adjustments to Ontario's beer marketing practices in response to a recent GATT panel decision. These amendments will permit the sale of imported beer in Ontario beer stores, which currently sell only domestic beer. The changes outlined in the amendments will allow us to fully meet our international trade obligations relating to the sale and distribution of beer.

APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST ACT, 1992

On motion by Mrs Marland, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr83,

An Act to revive Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Mr Speaker, I understand that we have unanimous consent to consider orders 2, 5, 6 and 7, all of them third reading, and that, further, there is agreement between the three parties to split third reading debate time equally.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

ADVOCACY ACT, 1992, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INTERVENTION ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I move third reading of Bill 74,

An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons / Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervention en faveur des personnes vulnérables.

I move, on behalf of Mr Hampton, third reading of Bill 108,

An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care / Loi prévoyant la prise de décisions au nom d'adultes en ce qui concerne la gestion de leurs biens et le soin de leur personne.

I move, on behalf of Ms Lankin, third reading of Bill 109,

An Act respecting Consent to Treatment / Loi concernant le consentement au traitement.

I move, on behalf of Mr Hampton, third reading of Bill 110,

An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui.

On behalf of my cabinet colleagues the Minister of Health and the Attorney General, I'm extremely pleased today to present the legislative package of the four interrelated acts, the Advocacy Act, the Substitute Decisions Act, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Consent and Capacity Statute Law Amendment Act for third reading.

The Advocacy Act is the cornerstone of this enabling legislative package. This is a very historic moment for all of us who have worked persistently in the last 20 years to see this legislative package become a reality. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and to thank all of those who are present from the community and representatives from the community who are here today for their great determination and vision. I will thank you more fully later on when we do our final summation.

The basic principle of this legislative package is to respect the rights and wishes of all people who are vulnerable as a result of a disability, aging, illness or accident. They must be given the opportunity to enable them to make their own personal, financial or health care decisions.

This is a coordinated approach to a systemic problem. The Advocacy Act is about empowerment and autonomy. The legislative framework is there to see that vulnerable adults get the information they need to make choices, to be able to speak for themselves, where possible, or to have an advocate to support or speak for them as they choose. By assuming ownership of their own lives, people will regain the self-respect that many of them have lost.

The Advocacy Act enshrines several fundamental principles: the rights of vulnerable persons to access advocates; independence from service providers; respect for privacy and availability of advocates in different settings, whether they are cultural or regional.

The Substitute Decisions Act promotes the rights of all Ontarians to make a living will. The framework allows people to authorize others to make personal, financial and health care decisions for them should they become incapable.

The Consent to Treatment Act incorporates in legislation for the first time the right of every capable person to make informed decisions about his or her own health care treatment.

For nearly 20 years, coroners' juries, consumers' groups and reports, such as those done by Steve Fram, Allan Manson, the late Father Sean O'Sullivan and more recently by Professor Ernie Lightman, have urged governments to bring forward legislation to support and protect the rights of vulnerable adults. Numerous committees and reports were commissioned to work on these very issues. Much of the necessary background work for this package stems from these earlier findings, and we are grateful for the contributions made by both opposition parties over the past several years.

Only two weeks ago the former member for St George-St David riding, Ian Scott, dispensed with partisan rhetoric to support this legislation and encourage its speedy adoption. He stated:

"It is much to the credit of the present government that it introduced this bill and has worked hard to bring it to a vote. Twenty years ago the concept that people with disabilities would voice their needs would have had little accordance with reality in the economic and social life of our community. It is critical that as the Advocacy Act moves through its final stages, its final amendments, it bear at the end the essentials to any advocacy system: independent delivery of advocacy services and the right of consumer groups to participate in the administration of this program."

Today we return to the Legislature after having benefited from the comments of more than 200 groups and individuals during two rounds of public consultations.

A critical component in the review of the bills was the input of groups and organizations such as the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and the Ontario Advocacy Coalition, with representation from 30 consumer and advocacy groups, including the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, Ontario Psychiatric Survivors, Pensioners Concerned for Ontario, Persons United for Self-Help and AIDS Action Now.

Professional groups, such as the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association, and family organizations, such as the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics and the Alzheimer Association, have brought forth concrete suggestions and helped us to clarify some of the issues.

We have listened carefully and worked diligently to present not only a principled act but a workable piece of legislation. I believe that as elected representatives we hold a common objective: empowerment and equity for disabled and frail vulnerable persons. A good balance has been struck. A strong act has evolved.

This is ground-breaking legislation. We have not had the benefit of learning from the experience of other jurisdictions. We have struggled together and our struggles have produced

an act that will benefit all Ontarians.

It was almost two years ago to the day that I stood in this House to announce this government's intention to introduce this legislative package. At that time I quoted Father Sean O'Sullivan from his 1987 report You've Got a Friend. I would like to do so again.

"Regardless of physical or mental illness and/or impairment, vulnerable persons must have the power to make decisions and exercise their right of choice. People are people, whether or not they have identifiable handicaps. The advocacy system is designed to foster a vulnerable individual's sense of dignity as a valuable contributing citizen of Ontario."

I believe that the legislative package before you today brings these moving words to reality. It brings dignity and respect to vulnerable adults and therefore dignity and respect to everyone in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm quite taken aback, actually, that the only minister to participate in this debate on third reading of four bills associated with the consent to treatment, substitute decision-making and advocacy bills is the Minister of Citizenship, with whom we probably had the most amount of difficulty in approaching these bills. If it's the intention of the other ministers to participate, then we'll look forward to that, but there certainly is one large gap in the debate so far in terms of ministerial participation.

For many months we've been considering the four bills associated with consent to treatment, substitute decision-making and the Advocacy Act, which would establish a new Advocacy Commission. Those bills are interconnected and interrelated and they will have enormous implications for every individual and every family in Ontario. But even more than that, they will have a significant impact on every health care practitioner and every health care institution.

Many educational settings, social service agencies and community organizations will have to work with these new rules, which will be new laws, and with the new parameters those laws will bring.

What has been deeply disturbing to all of us who have been through what can only be described as a monumentally frustrating process is the lack of care and attention the government has paid to these bills. I'd like to walk through with you, for a minute, Mr Speaker, some of the process we had to go through in coming to terms with what basically is developing law in Ontario.

The bills were presented to the House and the principles were accepted at second reading by all parties. You will remember that, Mr Speaker. But there was such inadequacy in the development of the legislation, such bad drafting and bad crafting that the government had to bring forward 199 amendments after the first round of public hearings. In those hearings, more groups and individuals appeared to present their concerns than had appeared in public hearings on Sunday shopping. I'd like to illustrate some of the kinds of concerns that were coming forward.

One of them relates to the Consent to Treatment Act and some of the original provisions of that act. Physicians were concerned that they would have to obtain informed consent to treatment for a procedure that would be provided in one setting but would not have to obtain consent for the same procedure if it were provided in a different setting. In other words, if a physician proposed a pelvic examination in his or her office, that physician may not have had to obtain the informed consent to proceed from the patient. But if the same examination were to have taken place in a hospital, the doctor would have had to have the consent of the patient to proceed.

I can only call that approach "stupidity." That kind of stupidity was included in the first draft as it was presented -- in the bill as it was presented -- to the House on first reading. One wonders, then, what kind of analysis went into considering the impact of such a law. What difference would it make, we have to ask ourselves -- and we did ask ourselves -- where the examination took place? The point is that the examination was intrusive, it is a controlled act under the Regulated Health Professions Act, and became no less intrusive because of the location of the place where it was to occur.

Yes, the government did bring in amendments to correct that approach, but one has to ask how it got into the bill in the first place. Why wasn't it considered to be an area that had no place in legislation presented as potential law of this province? It seems to me that it was there because of the sloppy approach in the presentation of the bill, by sloppy drafting and sloppy thinking. That's just one example.

While many of the amendments the government presented were valuable in correcting such sloppiness and, I think, in meeting the deeply held concerns not only of health care practitioners but of people representing other organizations, it was only at the instigation and insistence of the opposition that a second round of public hearings was allowed by the government.

After 199 amendments proposed by the government on complex, interrelated pieces of legislation were presented, we still had to fight in opposition to ensure a second round of public hearings. We had to fight to ensure that those who would be responsible on a day-to-day basis for living with and implementing these laws would have an opportunity to comment on the changes which were proposed by the government and by the opposition and whether those changes improved things or might lead to the necessity for other changes.

I think the public should know the way this government operates and why we in opposition are so angry at the way the government approached these bills, because in order to obtain agreement on a second round of public hearings the government insisted on time allocation: that the government would limit time for public review and consideration of these bills and for appropriate debate. The government can characterize that -- and it has tried to -- as all-party agreement, but it was nothing short of blackmail.

We went into the standing committee on the second go-round to consider clause by clause. The process could be characterized as nothing short of a mess, with no ministers showing enough interest in these bills -- and there are three ministers involved in these bills -- and no ministers showing enough knowledge of the policy concepts included in their bills to be at committee to defend them. The government put forward amendments, then withdrew them. The government stood down its own amendments as well as those of the opposition. The government's own members on the committee were as appalled at the display as the public and opposition members were, and yet the display continued.

At one point the government proposed that advocates under Bill 74, for whom the advocacy bill sets no training standards or code of ethics, should be able to obtain, without permission, the medical and clinical records of any person in Ontario who is disabled and any person in Ontario who is a senior citizen. At my insistence, that amendment was ruled out of order. But what kind of thinking, what discipline, what amateurism was driving the Advocacy Act?

As a result of the mess in committee, I put a motion before the committee. I think it explains in some detail the kind of frustration that we, health care practitioners and people from advocacy groups felt with respect to the process that was allowed to go on. I just want to read that to you. The motion read:

"I move that the Chair of the standing committee on administration of justice, on behalf of its members, report to the Legislative Assembly with respect to Bill 74 as follows:

a) That the members, having proceeded to examine Bill 74 clause by clause, are unable to complete the work assigned to them by the assembly in the time allotted by the motion of the House;

b) That government motions altering the policy of the bill have been presented to the committee for consideration in the final moments available for consideration of the bill;

c) That opposition and government motions for amendments have been stood down by the parliamentary assistant for clarification or redrafting and have not been brought back to the committee for reconsideration;

d) That committee recesses prompted by the government's uncertainty over the policy intent of the bill have caused undue delays in the committee's work;

e) That the committee is unable to exercise its legislative duties with diligence due to numerous conflicting amendments and public concerns; and further, that

f) It is the recommendation of the committee that, due to its deficiencies in policy and drafting, the minister withdraw Bill 74 in its current form, clarify the policy intent and introduce a revised bill for appropriate consideration by members of the Legislative Assembly."

That motion was voted down in committee. Even government members acknowledged to me that they wished they had been able to vote for that motion and that the report to the House was one that should not have been made, particularly with Bill 74 in the form in which it came back to this House. Even government members were embarrassed by the lack of policy consistency, by the sloppiness in the presentation of amendments and by the flip-flopping on details of the bill.

There never has been, in committee, such a shambles with respect to government legislation. It was clear that the minister responsible had not done her work and that the parliamentary assistant had no authority to make change and additions or to authorize further consideration of certain areas.

I will tell you that, subsequent to clause-by-clause consideration of these bills in committee, it was with enormous relief that the Premier's office finally understood the anxiety that was being expressed, not only by me in opposition, not only by the third party, but by representatives of every health care provider organization in the province. It was with enormous relief that the Minister of Citizenship was yanked off the job and that the Deputy Attorney General and the Premier's adviser, David Reville, were brought in to talk with the health care providers and determine the extent of the change that was needed.

But at what late date, and at what cost in human resources, in legal and other professional fees? Even then, there is something distasteful about a government that says to provider groups: "We'll give you some changes. We'll give you some of the changes you want, but you must sign off on these changes or you won't get any of them." That too is blackmail. That many of the organizations did sign a letter tells me that they believed they would get no change without a signature on a page.

The Minister of Citizenship was waving that sheet around in the House last week as if it were a big victory. Well, she should know there is no victory in blackmail, and she should know that that paper should be kept under wraps. There is only shame in it, and it's her shame.

There's also shame in the fact that by the time we reached committee of the whole House the government had put forward more than 300 amendments to these bills. That doesn't show that the government is open, as it will make claim to be. It simply shows how badly the legislation was considered and crafted in the first place; how incompetent the work was in shaping what are to be, I point out, new laws in this province.

There's also shame in the lack of public debate surrounding these bills. After seven days of clause-by-clause consideration of these bills in committee, which were a shambles, as I've pointed out, the bills came back to the House for committee of the whole consideration. We were only able to address 29 sections of one of those bills in the House. Three bills have not been considered in this chamber in any way. In every one of those bills the government had proposed substantive and substantial change.

Were proposed amendments not read into the record at the insistence of the opposition, there would be no way that anyone would have known what the government's final proposals were and what the final shape of the legislation would be.

Even with the reading in of the amendments, the bills are so complex that the final impact is still a mystery to those who will be breaking the law if they don't follow them. The bills are fundamentally different from that which was placed before the House at first reading, but many of the issues included in amendments, which were placed in committee of the whole, were never discussed in the standing committee. There was no testimony relating to them and the amendments appeared out of the blue.

I want to speak to one of these directly, because I think it is of adequate concern that the government should not proceed with it. I wish the Minister of Health were here; I hope she's listening, if she's not.

To do that I will have to return to the age issue in the Consent to Treatment Act. The intent of the Consent to Treatment Act and the principle, which we concur with, was to codify the common law with respect to consent to treatment. But Bill 109 did more than that, because it introduced an extraneous layer of rights adviser into the process. The common law, as you know, requires that if the person has the capacity or intellectual ability to reach a reasoned choice, given full information about whether to proceed with treatment, that person has the right to make that choice and to provide that consent.

For hundreds of years the common law has supported the right of children to provide consent to treatment where they fully understand the nature of the treatment, the illness or disease or condition which is to be treated, and the consequences of providing consent or refusing consent to that treatment. In practice, as parents, in most instances we assist our children in making those decisions. When the child does not have the capacity to consent, as parents we are usually the substitute decision-makers; ie, in place of the child we make the decision as to whether to proceed with the treatment or whether to refuse the treatment.

I am satisfied that the amendments proposed with respect to the age of consent truly reflect a codification of the common law. Where there is a problem, however -- and I hope people understand this -- is the intervention of rights advisers into the consent process. In the situation of a child, the legislation originally proposed that if a professional health care provider/practitioner had adjudged a child not to have the capacity to provide consent to a treatment, the child could have access to a rights adviser who would assist the child in challenging that professional judgement.

So we have a new actor here, a rights adviser, an extraneous third person, a stranger, inserted between child and parent and between child and physician. This intervention presents a fundamentally different view of the responsibilities and legal requirements which we accept as parents to act in the best interests of our children, to make decisions on their behalf which will ensure that they receive the most appropriate and the best care in the most timely way.

It also brings to the relationship between physician and child a new adversarial process, because what is being challenged is the physician's personal judgement about the child's capacity to make a consent decision alone, without assistance from the parent or another substitute decision-maker. It is a challenge to the professional judgement and capability of the physician, and it introduces an adversarial element into that relationship.

I want to describe a situation that was put to us in committee by practitioners from the Hospital for Sick Children who spoke about the fear which may ensue and influence a child's decision, indeed the capacity of a child to make a decision, with respect to heavily intrusive treatment. We think of a child, by example, with scoliosis, where there is more than one treatment proposed in a series of a course of treatments that will lead ultimately to a benefit in the health of the child. Each one of those treatments is a painful, excruciating process for the child.

If the decision of the child is made in fear of pain, that fear alone may interfere with the capacity of the child to make an informed judgement.

At that point the parent, the physician and other people who are on the health care team, including counsellors, have been intimately involved with the child in working their way through a long, stressful and painful course of treatment. In this case, because of fear, because of the fear of pain on the part of the child, the physician may say, "At this point, I do not believe the child is making an informed, capable judgement about whether to proceed with treatment or not proceed with treatment."

The legislation proposed that at 12 years of age the child could engage a rights adviser new to the process, over and above the other multidisciplinary approach that had been taken, including involving the family, the parents and other people who have responsibility for the care of that child. The child is now able to intervene by questioning the professional judgement of the practitioner with respect to the child's own capacity.

In doing so, that intervention can create a situation where there's a new adversarial relationship between the physician and child, where the level of trust which had been established between physician, child, patient and others on the health care team is put at risk. There can be delay in decision-making, which itself can be of serious and long-term concern in terms of the health care treatment of the child.

That's one of the instances that was put before us in committee. It's a telling one. There were others put before us that were similarly telling. After much consideration and debate, I put forward a motion that would have moved the automatic intervention of the rights adviser to age 16 from age 12. The third party placed the same amendment, and groups and organizations, including children's aid societies, strongly supported that change. It was a reasonable age to pick.

I want to give credit to legal counsel for the Ministry of Health, who provided our committee with a substantial report with respect to the history of the age of consent and who, in that report indicated the kinds of decisions that had been made with respect to determining when a minor can be mature for various areas of decision-making.

But 16, in terms of the rights adviser kick-in, appeared to be a time that was reasonable. It is a time when young people are reaching the conclusion of their high school years, when they're recognized as being able to make their own decisions about whether or not to stay in school, when many of them are making decisions about the kind of training, education and other choices about their future. That age of 16 was not selected in isolation from other common law treatment of the mature minor.

Yet we saw the government's final reaction in committee of the whole House on Thursday of last week. We saw that they've taken the four years between age 12 and age 16, divided them in half and changed the age for the entitlement to rights advice to 14.

What kind of policy-making is this? What kind of decision-making is it that says we'll take one point of view on the one hand, another point of view on the other hand and we'll reach a compromise by averaging? I can't tell you how outraged people are who have understood the approach the government has finally taken here. There was no testimony before the committee that suggested that 14 years was an appropriate age. There was no discussion of 14 years as a proposed change to this

section of the bill. There was no public hint by government that it was considering moving to 14 years from 12, and not to 16 years. In fact, all the indications from government were that it was going to stick with 12 years for information about rights advice.

How can anyone have any confidence that other changes haven't been made because of a mere averaging of competing views? How could anyone have any confidence that the laws we are making are being made with careful thought and deliberation? No one is happy with this decision. It solves none of the problems that were raised with respect to the age issue in the first place. It's no solution and it will continue to create conflict. I'll tell you that the phones in all our offices are ringing off the hook today as a result of this decision.

But there is another area where the government has made a move on the age issue that is equally, if not more, troubling. Once again, I will have to go into some background detail to discuss this issue. The Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act make provision for a person to decide in advance how he or she would want to be treated in the event that he or she is incapable of making a clear instruction at a later time. There is a process spelled out for doing so. That process would require that the person must be capable at the time an advance directive is made and would reflect the person's values and choices about future health care.

There may be many influences on that person's decision. They could be cultural, they could be religious, they could be based on a person's own family experience or heritage. But the intent is that the choice of the individual about how he or she should be treated is paramount in providing or refusing consent. Those are the instructions the health care practitioner must take into account.

In a hasty amendment which was placed in committee of the whole last Thursday and which we had no time to debate, the government has introduced an age requirement for an advance directive that it requires in no other circumstances for the provision of consent to treatment. There was no testimony before the committee on this point. There was no discussion as to whether a person who was capable of providing consent for imminent treatment might not be capable of providing consent for future treatment.

There was no discussion of the common law treatment of instructions with respect to treatment which could occur at the present time, in comparison to instructions about treatment which could occur at a later time.

The fundamental discussion and the fundamental principles which were accepted were that, if one were capable and informed, one could provide consent for treatment or refuse to provide consent for treatment that was proposed to take place at the current time, or that one could provide, through a process, instructions about future consent to treatment or the refusal to provide consent to treatment.

A capable consent could be based on religious grounds. A capable consent could take into account cultural and other heritages. But the fundamental point is that a capable consent reflected the individual point of view and the individual choice of the person making the decision about consent.

It appears that in certain instances those parameters have changed, because the government is now saying that one cannot provide an advance directive with respect to consent unless one is over 16, but one can provide consent to treatment at any age. So the person who is under 16, who may profess a faith or reflect a heritage that prefers a certain approach to treatment, may not have that faith or that heritage honoured.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, and I disagree with many of the fundamental tenets of that religion. I'm not a Christian Scientist, and I disagree with many of the fundamental tenets of that religion. But like many others here, I joined my own church when I was 12 or 13 years old and, in doing so, I accepted certain obligations that were an integral part of my own faith and the way I would live my life. Thousands of others do the same. Many people here, and in fact I suggest most people in this chamber, have done the same at the same age.

While the experience of age may mean that the full theological underpinnings of that choice of religion may be undeveloped, the fundamental values of the religion are clearly known and understood by thousands of young people.

The government has accepted an amendment proposed by a distinguished practitioner at the Hospital for Sick Children, but, Mr Speaker, there was no discussion of the ethical issues surrounding that proposal. It never came to committee at any time. Now I know and you know and other members here know how difficult it is for practitioners to deal with ethical questions surrounding treatment of a person whose religious views of treatment conflict with their own mandate as health care providers.

When you're training and your ethical code and the standards of practice require that you heal using every possible approach available to you, it is deeply disturbing when a patient places limits that may be life-threatening on what you as a practitioner are allowed to do when a person may die who with your skill, given the freedom to act, might otherwise be saved, when a person who refuses a blood transfusion on religious grounds, by example, may not recover. Yet surely it's a gross invasion of human rights to say that a person, solely because of age, can have an otherwise capable direction with respect to health care set aside.

There was no discussion, again I underline, of the ethical implications of this issue in committee. It would have been useful, I believe, to have had this proposal discussed by medical ethicists so that legislators could have had a clearer understanding of the practical and the theoretical issues surrounding this proposal. It would have been useful to have had doctors, nurses, children's aid societies and lawyers before the committee to explore how such issues have been dealt with in the past and the most appropriate way to deal with them in law in the future. But we had none of that.

Mr Speaker, we had a surprise amendment at the end of what you understand was a convoluted and very complex process, where not only on this issue but on many others there was inadequate time and insufficient review to ensure that the laws which are being formulated are good laws.

I am personally very uneasy about the implications of this amendment. Because of the way the time allocation has been made, I have not even had the opportunity to discuss with my own caucus colleagues the specific implications of this particular amendment. No other caucus has had the opportunity to have that discussion as well, including, I put it to you, the government caucus. But we are proceeding apace, and while there may be unease, it's very clear that the government is going to proceed with this, despite not knowing the clear implications of this amendment.

Is the government in fact perpetuating and legalizing a discrimination against a group of people that professes a certain kind of faith? That may well be the long-term implication of this particular amendment. I do not believe that it has been explored in adequate depth. I do not believe that the government has paid attention to more than one point of view with respect to this particular issue. I will tell you that the reservations which I've expressed and those which are being put forward here by the third party and by the dozens of organizations and individuals have not been frivolous, and I don't believe that in this area they've been frivolous either.

It's fair to say, I think, that we've all worked very hard on these bills. I look in the gallery, and there are many people who walk through these bills in their own organizations from morning till night. There are many people who'll be following this debate on television in their own offices and in their own places and they have worked extremely hard on these bills.

Scores of people appeared before us at an enormous cost of time and money. At various times some of them came to us and apologized that they had not been able to afford legal counsel in order to assist them in framing their arguments a

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1992-12-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p35 s2 1992-12-07 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ab294bb5fb75668563d255019c1b8cfbcd6c8b37

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).