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

October 27, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HARRY GAIREY

RAIL SERVICE IN ALGONQUIN PARK

FEDERAL ELECTION

TOURISM

GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

MINING INDUSTRY

LAYOFFS

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

RED HILL VALLEY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ASSISTED HOUSING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ASSISTED HOUSING

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

TUITION FEES

CASINO GAMBLING

TAX EXEMPTION

DENTURE THERAPISTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAX EXEMPTION

POLICE SERVICES

TAX EXEMPTION

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HARRY GAIREY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Tomorrow, just about this time, we say goodbye to a true human being, an individual who fought for the rights of human beings who are struggling for equity.

Harry Gairey died at 98. He was a mentor not only to me but to many, many people in this country. Mr Gairey arrived in Canada in 1914 and has been a true what we call a Marcus Garveyite and has struggled and fought for the rights of the people. He was also the individual who formed the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters of Canada in 1950. He also founded the Negro Citizenship Association.

Not only is he regarded as the godfather for all of us here in the black community, but he was also recognized by Canada. The Order of Canada was bestowed upon him, the Order of Ontario, the Order of Jamaica and the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship.

Mr Gairey is survived by his wife, Amy, her son Carl and his son Harry Jr. He was such a wonderful individual. I remember him advising me the first time I ran and telling me how important it was for me to stand tall in the cause that I do and to believe in what I do.

He'll be missed individually, but I tell you his work will be continued and felt among all of us, regardless of what colour we are. We hope God rests his soul.

RAIL SERVICE IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to express my support, Minister, for your opposition at the National Transportation Agency of Canada hearings to the CN and CP rail line consolidation through Algonquin Park. The consolidation of these lines will serve to increase train traffic through the park and at the same time will abandon an existing CP line that is required to serve the scenic Ottawa Valley.

As a result of this consolidation, the drastic increase in rail traffic through Algonquin Park will significantly change the character of this park. As I stated earlier this year, this will have a very negative impact upon the ecosystem and aesthetics of Ontario's oldest provincial park. From an environmental perspective, more wildlife will be killed on the tracks, and the possibility of chemical spills will increase in an area where a cleanup would be extremely difficult due to isolation from major highways.

The increase in rail service through the park may also reduce the number of park visitors in the long term. Noise pollution levels will ruin the natural wilderness experience for many visitors. In this year of the 100th anniversary of Algonquin Provincial Park, it is essential that we work to protect the natural heritage and resources which this wilderness sanctuary is designed to preserve.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I'm appalled at the behaviour of Her Majesty's loyal opposition basking in the election victory of Monday. By doing this, they are denying political history. In 1984, if the campaign had lasted just one more week, the Liberal Party would probably have suffered the same fate as the Progressive Conservatives did on Monday.

This defeat is one that the major parties seem to think will never happen to them. I know that my party has had its share of times when it seemingly has been wiped off the election map. Each time New Democrats have banded together behind their firm commitment to a social democracy system, gotten off the ground and, like a phoenix, they have risen again.

In spite of the comments yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, the New Democrats are not a party divided by factions, or a party searching for a way, or a party that is continually lusting for power, but people who believe that social programs are sacred, that assisting people when they need help is critical and that fairness must be maintained.

My federal leader will take this program to Ottawa, and even though party status has been lost, the message will still be spoken. I am proud of the candidates who carried the banner, either successfully or unsuccessfully, because I know Canadians want their caring to continue.

To the people on the other side of the House who continually write the obituaries of the NDP: You'd better prepare for the election battle to continue.

TOURISM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Residents in my area are shaking their heads over the provincial government's apparent lack of interest in tourism in eastern Ontario.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission made a decision in 1990 to close five parks in the system, and two more have been closed since then. The Premier and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have indicated no interest in meeting with municipal councils to discuss possible leasing agreements.

I have told this House many times that I believe the government and the parks commission should be working more closely with municipalities and private interests to boost tourism in the area and improve cooperation between the commission and the private sector. I have also raised a number of incidents which underline the need for a review of the parks commission's outlook on private sector participation in tourism.

I have now written to the minister three times requesting that Charlottenburgh township be granted a meeting with her to discuss the reopening of the Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks, and still no answer. The Premier told me to deal directly with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I can only call upon the minister one more time to meet with the Charlottenburgh township in good faith and consider all options to reopen the parks. Eastern Ontario already possesses the natural charm to attract tourists. It now deserves a little cooperation from this government.

GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Members of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources in August to advise him of their concern with his apparent lack of commitment to the partnership which has existed for many years between his ministry and the conservation authorities of Ontario. They have received no response.

Over one year ago, I raised the issue of a memorandum of agreement signed by the MNR and Grey Sauble which entitled the ministry to harvest and sell the authority's trees. Traditionally, MNR keeps the proceeds from these sales but gives any surplus funds back to the authority when asked. However, when Grey Sauble requested money on March 31, 1992, they were told, with no consultation, that the ministry was reconsidering the process of returning funds even though there was in excess of $40,000 in the account belonging to Grey Sauble. They still do not have their money.

The minister knows full well that the conservation authority relies on the sale of these trees to carry out its programs, especially now when funding is being slashed. Grey Sauble is concerned that a system of arbitrary decision-making is now in place and the previously effective method of consultation has become a thing of the past.

I believe Grey Sauble's concerns are well founded. The decision to ask conservation authorities to pay property taxes while at the same time cutting their operating grants was also made with no prior discussion. The ministry cannot continue to operate in this fashion, and I would ask the minister to listen to the community. As the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority says in its letter, unilateral decisions without consultation are no longer acceptable in today's society or in government.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the people of Ontario and those watching of the importance of our mining sector in the provincial economy of Ontario.

You would know, Mr Speaker, that because of the ongoing work of groups like Save Our North, based out of northeastern Ontario, in regard to trying to assist mining and to develop the kinds of strategies that we need to be able to encourage mining, a number of things have been developed in partnership with the Save Our North group, the mining industry and the government through the Minister of Mines, Shelley Martel, the Premier and other people.

Some of the things we've managed to accomplish are very amazing. We've managed to be able to develop a good system of databases by which to be able to develop a system of information for prospectors so that they can better have the tools to do their jobs. We amended Bill 220, the Environmental Protection Act that was developed by the Liberal government, which impeded mining. We were able to make some changes in that act in order to be able to clear up the question of liability when it came to that.

We were able to develop a one-window approach to permitting in order to assist mining operators to be able to go out and to work on property. We were able to develop some land use planning policy that we're doing right now with my colleagues Mr Hampton and Mr Wood in regard to land use planning.

LAYOFFS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today Ontario's recovery was dealt another body blow with Dofasco's announcement on an involuntary, indefinite laying off of 750 workers by next April. That is almost 10% of its remaining workforce.

The implications of this announcement are staggering. Here we are two years into an economic recovery and economic conditions are still so bad that one of Ontario's largest employers is forced to cut its staff by an additional 10%. Now another 750 people are on the unemployment lines. With Ontario's high unemployment rate, many of these former steelworkers could end up on welfare.

Economists say that times are tough, but in Ontario they are tougher. Here, employment is not likely to reach the pre-recession peak until 1995. Ontario used to have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now we are fifth. Our economy is performing worse than four other provinces. The government likes to blame global restructuring for its problems, but that's only part of it. We are performing worse than four other provinces, all of which face the same global pressures as Ontario.

The reason that Ontario's recovery is almost non-existent and the reason that these 750 people at Dofasco find themselves on the unemployment line is because of this government's inability to generate any type of workable plan for getting Ontario growing again.

On Monday, Ontarians sent the federal Conservatives the message that they want jobs, and it is apparent that this government will get the same message in another 18 months.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and concerns his decision to move his ministry office out of Orillia. I'm pleased the Premier is here today; I ask you to listen closely to this statement, Mr Premier.

When I first raised this matter in the Legislature on September 28, I told you about a resolution that was passed and sent to the minister from the Clerks and Treasurers Association of Simcoe County objecting to the closure of the Orillia office and requesting that your government reconsider this decision. You claimed you had not seen a copy of this resolution that had been mailed to you on September 17. Instead of responding to their legitimate concerns, you suggested the closure of the Orillia office is your way of economizing and delivering services more efficiently.

I warned you that closing the Orillia office would not be cost-efficient nor efficient for taxpayers because of the remaining $48,000 annual rent for three more years, recent renovations and new furnishings that cost $70,000, the need to rent more space in Toronto at a higher square-footage rate, the estimated minimum $25,000 cost per person to move, and the increased travel and accommodation expenses for staff from Toronto to serve Simcoe county. As well, I pointed out that the reports from both the Sewell commission and your own ministry recommended maintaining a presence in the city of Orillia.

You claimed that your studies indicate closing the Orillia office would result in substantial savings of close to $500,000. Mr Premier, I want the minister to give us the studies now. I would like to see the breakdown so that we know what the true cost is.

RED HILL VALLEY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I rise today to offer a very special invitation, an invitation to Liberal leader Lyn McLeod and her Liberal colleagues to attend the Red Hill Valley Exhibition, a part of the On The Edge art-environmental project which focuses on distinctive natural environments in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

As I mentioned in this House on an earlier date, Liberal leader Lyn McLeod and some of her party hopefuls came to Hamilton and promised expressway proponents to vote for the Liberals and they would provide money to pave over the Red Hill Creek Valley with an expressway.

The Red Hill Creek Valley is the only remaining large green space in the industrial east end of Hamilton. The predominantly wooded 1,600 acres of the valley reduce air pollution and provide cooling in the summer. The valley is an important remnant of the once-existing Carolinian forest. The areas of the Niagara Escarpment which the valley encompasses are recognized by UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve, and it provides links with natural areas stretching over 700 kilometres.

At the two intersections of the wooded corridors, the Red Hill Valley exhibits a great degree of biological diversity. There are migrating songbirds, and variation in moisture and topography contribute to the creation of a number of microclimates which sustain over 36 species of butterflies, 11 types of reptiles and amphibians and 340 plant classifications.

The exhibition runs until November 25 in Hamilton. I strongly urge you, Mrs McLeod, and others wishing to pave over the Red Hill Creek Valley to come out and find out what the Red Hill Creek Valley is all about.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week we raised our concerns about the growing problem of welfare fraud in one specific community. The Premier dismissed out of hand the concerns that were raised in a question by the member for Bruce; in fact, he challenged us to produce evidence. If you need to be reminded of the way in which you responded to the question from the member for Bruce, I will send you a copy of the Hansard which I have in front of me, in which you challenged the member for Bruce to produce evidence of whether or not there was any problem.

Premier, earlier today I gave notice that I would be raising this issue in the House this afternoon and I forwarded to you and to the Minister of Community and Social Services copies of a federal government internal report regarding investigations that deal specifically with refugees who are applying for welfare under up to 20 names and who are then sending that welfare money to their home country, in this case Somalia.

The reports allege that an individual enrolling in our welfare system under multiple names can easily receive over $100,000 a year in welfare funding and sometimes receive up to $300,000. The report states that the fraud is over tens of millions of dollars annually.

Premier, as this particular report refers to investigations that took place earlier this year, I assume you have been fully briefed on the issue since the member for Bruce raised the question earlier. What involvement did your government have in these past investigations and what did you do as a result of these investigations to prevent fraudulent multiple welfare claims?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I appreciate her having sent the material she referred to, although I also want to note for her that it arrived in my office at 1:15 this afternoon, so I haven't made my way entirely through the package she sent.

To address very specifically her question, the report indicates very clearly the high level of cooperation there has been between the federal authorities and, in the cases referred to, the people locally responsible for the social assistance system, in both cases people at the municipal level. I think it's important that this also be underscored.

I can't say to her exactly, not having had the chance to go through the exact report, what the level of involvement at the ministry level has been on this issue, but certainly on the issues raised by her colleague last week I know the people at our area office were also aware of the investigations under way, and there has been full cooperation between the federal authorities on this and the local people involved in running the social assistance system in addressing what is obviously an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Mrs McLeod: I'm somewhat confused by the minister's response. He indicates, as I would have hoped he would, that his ministry was working cooperatively with the federal government in carrying out this investigation. I sent a copy of the report so that the minister and the Premier would be aware that I had a copy of it and was going to be raising the issue in the House today.

I had assumed that the minister, having been involved with his ministry in the investigation, would be aware of the results of the investigation and would be prepared to tell us today exactly what action his government has taken, as a result of that investigation, to deal with the concerns that were clearly outlined in that report. I was not expecting that the minister would have to have time to read the report itself.

Let me, for the minister's sake, cite one part of that report. "This group is importing refugees to systematically pillage our vulnerable and exposed social welfare systems in an attempt to raise funds to support clan interests in the struggle for power in Somalia." The report notes that a few key organizers are compelling other Somalians to move to Canada for the sole purpose of accessing welfare funds through multiple applications.

Minister, this whole process appears to be designed to send welfare money back to Somalia to fund the purchase of weapons and arms for fighting in that country. Again, I remind you that according to this report these kinds of activities are costing Ontario taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year. Our purpose in raising the question again today is to say: How can this happen in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Can you tell us the extent of this problem? Can you tell us whether you are continuing to work with the federal government on further investigations and what investigations you have initiated through your ministry to assess the extent of the problem and to deal with it?

Hon Mr Silipo: There are a lot of questions in that supplementary, so let me try quickly to address as many as I can. We are absolutely addressing this issue. We are continuing to work with the federal authorities; in fact, we are in the process of adding to the efforts that have been under way by developing a joint information system, an information-sharing agreement with the federal authorities which will allow us to be able to cover the exchange of information between the immigration systems and the social assistance systems.

The Leader of the Opposition would be the first to remind us that in doing that we have to, on the one hand, be very clear about what can be done and should be done in terms of that sharing of information and, on the other hand, balance the interests and the protection for individuals' freedoms. That's what we are doing. But that process is happening, and I can tell her that it will continue in earnest.

Also, and we were able to outline some of these in answers to earlier questions, we have taken this issue quite seriously and have demonstrated that commitment by putting more people into the system at the staff level both to be able to do case reviews of people who are on social assistance and also just to be able to add more people to deal with the increasing case load that our income maintenance workers have to deal with, which sometimes leads to some of these problems developing. Simply by oversight is how they sometimes also happen.

This is an issue that we take quite seriously. While the member may be looking for very detailed answers on every little piece of the puzzle, I think she will also appreciate that those are not always answers that can be given. I can tell her that this is an issue that is being looked at and is being addressed quite seriously, and I'd be happy to be able to provide further information as the situation warrants and as the situation allows.

Mrs McLeod: I do want to emphasize the fact that we raise this as an issue which is within provincial jurisdiction. The Premier himself, in responding to the member for Bruce last week, did say that if there was any evidence that there was fraud or allegations of fraud, it was the provincial government that had an obligation to monitor, to investigate the instances of fraud, to charge those who are responsible for fraud, and to deal with it on that basis. Because that was clearly a provincial responsibility acknowledged by the Premier, I was concerned to read in these reports that the province is doing almost nothing to monitor and control this kind of organized and systematic fraud.

The reports do suggest some very specific steps that you as minister should be taking and that your government should be taking to control welfare fraud. Two of those recommendations: One is that there be a linking of local welfare databases to catch the duplicate applications; the other is that you establish formal investigation procedures with federal officials under memorandums of understanding.

I ask whether or not you are aware of those specific recommendations and whether or not you are taking any action on those two specific recommendations: the establishment of linkages between local welfare databases and the establishment of memorandums of agreement with the federal government. I'm asking you specifically, what are you doing to follow up on these kinds of solutions to prevent these millions of dollars in welfare fraud?

Hon Mr Silipo: As I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition would know, the development of a more systematic database is one of the fundamental pillars of the new system we think we need to bring about. In fact, the collapsing of the two systems we have now in the province, as I think she would also know and would be ready to admit, is also the basis of to what extent the provincial government is directly involved in the details of these investigations and to what extent it's the municipal authorities that are involved, where they are the deliverers in terms of the general welfare assistance system.

But I can say to her very clearly that the issue of the development of the database is certainly something we have acknowledged and have agreed is something that needs to be done, and a lot of work is happening on that as part of bringing together the new system. With that, the point I made earlier in answer to the earlier supplementary I think will also help us address the issue of more formal investigations.

I would end by saying that I think it is also helpful, when these issues are raised, if in fact the honourable Leader of the Opposition expects me to be able to answer in detail some of the issues she raises, that there is an onus to bring the specifics to my attention a little earlier than 15 minutes before the beginning of question period.

Notwithstanding that, the issues, I can tell her very clearly, are being addressed, and I have every confidence that they are being addressed in the most effective manner.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I hope you will consider it a point of privilege when I say I really do take offence at the suggestion from the minister that we're not working hard enough to do his job for him. I felt it was responsible opposition to give this minister and the Premier a copy of the report --

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will know that she does not have a point of privilege. However, she does now have an opportunity to place a new question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier. Yesterday we raised a question about the comments Brian King, the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, had made on the credibility of the Provincial Auditor.

What we have here, Premier, is a senior official of the Workers' Compensation Board, and again, I remind you, as I did yesterday, that Mr King is a senior officer appointed by you. This senior official has deliberately misled a legislative committee. He has attempted to undermine the credibility and the integrity of the Provincial Auditor in order to protect himself and to deflect attention from the financial mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr King has now offered a rather lukewarm apology to the auditor for any misunderstandings that may have resulted because of his comments. This kind of apology, Premier, is simply unacceptable. I would ask if you are now prepared to demand that Mr King offer a complete withdrawal of his remarks and a full and unqualified apology to the Provincial Auditor and to this House for misleading a legislative committee.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I take exception to "deliberately misleading the committee." I think the leader of the official opposition also knows that a letter was sent to the Chairman of the committee which states in part --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): We take exception to him doing that as well. That's why we raised the question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre knows that he should not use unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker; I'm not sure what -- I mentioned that the allegation was that the vice-chair of the board deliberately misled the committee. That's on the public record. I didn't refer to the minister deliberately misleading anyone. I talked about a public official.

The Speaker: What I heard the member say was that he was accusing the minister of misleading.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I invite you to check Hansard. I at no time said that the minister was misleading. What I said was that the vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Board was deliberately misleading the committee.

The Speaker: I will accept that. The Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr King has sent a letter to the auditor apologizing for any misunderstandings about the objectivity and factual content of your report. The auditor has sent a letter back to the Chairman of the committee in which he states in part, "In my opinion, this would put the matter to rest and would enable all of us to carry on the important work of improving the accountability framework in which the WCB operates." I don't see that as a deliberate misrepresentation and I think that we should get on with the job of trying to make the corrections that we know have to be made at the board.

Mrs McLeod: This is not just a misunderstanding. Mr King can't simply respond by saying he apologizes for a misunderstanding. It was quite clear in the auditor's response, and we raised this yesterday, that Mr King indicated that he'd asked the auditor for a legal opinion, which the auditor was precluded from providing, and that he claimed that the auditor had given a go-ahead to the WCB building through a previous audit when the auditor said he had no knowledge of the plans for that building so could not possibly have given the go-ahead for it. How can that be considered a misunderstanding?

Those are factually incorrect statements made to a legislative committee of this House, and that is why we characterize them as deliberately misleading.

I simply don't believe that the kind of apology that Mr King has offered settles the matter. I am concerned about this kind of behaviour, given the fact that we are all concerned with the financial crisis that the Workers' Compensation Board is facing. You surely know, Minister, that with a financial crisis that sees an unfunded liability growing by more than $1 million a day, the liability of the Workers' Compensation Board could soon rival the liability of the provincial debt.

It is absolutely essential that all of the energies of the officials of the Workers' Compensation Board be devoted to dealing with the very real problems of workers' compensation and that liability. I ask the Premier, although he refers the question, as I ask you: How can you possibly continue to condone this kind of irresponsible behaviour from officials of the Workers' Compensation Board who should be concentrating their energies on solving the WCB problems?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't condone any irresponsible activity, but I don't see it here. I don't know anybody who's working harder than Mr King and the current board, trying to deal with some of the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. His letter seems to have satisfied the auditor.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): He didn't tell the committee the facts. Is that okay with you?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would also like to state again for the record that the ministry and the WCB are complying with all of the original recommendations in the auditor's report about the WCB building.

Mrs McLeod: Mr King's halfhearted apology, an apology for creating misunderstandings, has not satisfied the members of this caucus. I don't believe it has satisfied the members of the public who are concerned about what this says to their confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr King has not acknowledged that he in any way misled the committee. He has not admitted that it was absolutely irresponsible to cast aspersions on the Provincial Auditor. He has not taken responsibility for the damage that he himself has done by attempting to undermine the auditor.

Minister, I would suggest to you that if we're to have confidence in Mr King, the confidence which you express today, and if we are ultimately to have confidence in the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr King has to acknowledge the full consequences of his irresponsible remarks. He has to apologize without qualification. I ask you, and in turn ask you to ask the Premier of this province, will you ask Mr King to apologize fully, completely and without qualification, and if you will not do so in a way that removes any question about the Provincial Auditor's integrity, will you ask for Mr King's resignation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think Mr King has apologized for any misunderstanding and I notice that he's also to appear before the committee again in two or three weeks' time. I can't understand the kind of hatchet job I see going on here today by the member of the opposition.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier concerning the same matter. This morning, Premier, WCB vice-chair Brian King wrote to the Provincial Auditor in response to allegations that he had misled a legislative committee. Mr King said in the letter, "I apologize for any misunderstandings," ie, "I'm sorry that you were so stupid, Auditor, to misunderstand what I said." That's not an apology, number one.

Secondly, it's not about misunderstandings. This is about a senior civil servant of a crown corporation misleading a committee of elected representatives, and by misleading elected representatives, he is misleading the public. The only role the auditor had in this was to point out that he had misled the committee, but the serious matter before us is, he did mislead the committee, and that is not in dispute.

Premier, given that he has not denied the auditor's allegations that he misled the committee, he has not apologized to the committee, two months have gone by, he's made no attempt to set the record straight on the misinformation that was given, will you today insist on his resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I'll refer that to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would seem to me that the place to get the answers to some of the questions the leader of the third party is raising is before the committee when Mr King appears before it again in a few weeks' time. That makes sense to me, rather than the kind of comments that are being made here, because he has sent a letter apologizing for any misunderstanding. I really don't know what else the member wants.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, it makes no sense to me that two months after he misled the committee, and it has now been acknowledged and the auditor has pointed that out, he made no attempt to apologize to the committee, to correct the record, to give the right information. Yes, he's coming before the committee, because the committee demanded that he appear. He didn't volunteer. He didn't ask to come.

Minister of Labour, now that I'm on to you, you personally wrote to the CFIB and you said this: "In my view, the auditor's report confirms that the WCB made a sound investment when it decided to relocate its head office to Simcoe Place." From this letter, Minister, it is clear that you have bought into Mr King's misleading information as well, and you now, as a minister of the crown, are disseminating that information erroneously to the public, to CFIB, to everybody that you're writing to and we now know from the auditor that this was misleading information.

I ask you this: If you'll not sack this guy for misleading the public in a committee of the Legislature, will you not sack him for misleading you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would be interesting to maybe make the comment that the first briefing that we had on this issue was from a previous chair of the board, Mr Elgie, and another one of the board members who made this recommendation almost three years ago. I did not think he was misleading us at the time, and I reject the allegation, that I have bought into any misleading information, from the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I'm not interested in what happened three years ago; I'm interested in this: A senior civil servant misled a committee of the Legislature two months ago. No apology, no acknowledgement of that; an acknowledgement to the auditor in a backhanded kind of way. This goes to the very heart, the very core of democracy. This is what the election was about two days ago, how politics is done, how arrogant majority governments do whatever they want, cover up things they want, get the majority of the committee members to mug the committee, prevent any further discussion.

If you're defending Mr King, it begs the question that you were involved as well. You are clearly disseminating information out to CFIB based upon a false premise. This mess stinks.

Can you explain to me, given all the information that is out there, why you have attempted to block any discussion of this with your committee members, why it took the auditor to finally come public and point out that the committee had been misled, and in light of all this information, why this man you have confidence in gave you misleading information in your correspondence, why there's been no apology to you, to the committee, to the Legislature, to the public and no attempt to set the record straight? Is that acceptable behaviour for you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do want to say that I noticed that the government members supported the motion to have Mr King back before the committee and I think that's the time and place for the member to raise his questions.

Mr Harris: I don't think you get it. I don't think your Premier, your cabinet have got what the public of this province are saying about the way you and your administration are doing politics in this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Two weeks ago today, I asked you about a housing project at 10 Ashdale Avenue in Toronto. In case you forgot the picture, here it is, so everybody can see 10 Ashdale Avenue. That was two weeks ago. The province is shelling out $1,418 per month per apartment, in an area where you can rent a comparable two-bedroom apartment for roughly half that amount.

Since this project was approved by the Liberals, as you keep pointing out, you said you needed time to report to the House. Can you, then, tell me today, two weeks later, whether you think, regardless of who started this policy and this project, it makes sense to spend twice as much for this type of government housing project when we could help twice as many families by providing that amount of money as shelter subsidies in existing apartments?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): In the absence of the leader of the third party last week, I did table all the background information from the file on this project. As he mentioned, he had raised the question about the cost of the project. It was one which was completed in the late 1980s and it was one in fact where two old units were purchased and converted into two-family units. It was an expensive project and in fact in today's housing market, it's not the kind of project which would be undertaken.

Mr Harris: I know all the facts; I've got all the information. I'm asking you whether you think it makes sense.

Minister, let me give you another example today. This time the property is just off Murray Street in Brampton. The portion of the monthly rent for each of these six townhouses that the taxpayers pay is $1,635 per month; that's the taxpayer rent payment. According to the managers of this property, there are no special amenities, no assistance for people who live here, no special housing for the handicapped.

Now, listen to what we can rent in Brampton today. For $875 a month we can rent a three-bedroom upper semi, four appliances. We can rent a four-bedroom semi, two baths, four appliances, finished basement, not row housing but a semi; that's for $1,150 a month. We can rent a three-bedroom finished apartment with appliances, near schools, for $995 a month.

At a time when there is so little money available to help needy families, why are you wasting far more money on this type of housing when we could be helping twice as many families? Why are you continuing to do this?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will be glad to examine the file on the particular project the member is looking at. He will know that there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of non-profit housing developments across this province, so I'll not necessarily be familiar with all the details of any particular project. I would suggest to him that if he were to compare the purchase of a home with the rental of a home in any major urban centre in this province, he would be paying more for the purchase of a home.

I want him to understand -- if I keep repeating it to him, eventually I'm sure it'll come through -- that the investment made in non-profit housing is, over time, an enormously cost-effective investment on behalf of the public of Ontario. The asset that represents is one which will remain available to the use of the public of Ontario and assist us in dealing with a very serious housing problem among people in Ontario.

Mr Harris: All the figures we give you, you know, come from your ministry. You can check with your ministry for the figures. You'll find that they're the same ones they give me. I assume they don't send out misleading information, as does WCB. One example might be a fluke; two could be a coincidence; I've raised three in the last month alone. I raised examples last year in Wawa before they were built and you had a chance to stop the waste. This is a trend. The policy of government-owned housing that you took over from the Liberals is costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Now you tell me long-term. You know that respected studies estimate that the existing units, either built and that you inherited or planned by you, will cost, after averaging in over 50 years, even after the mortgage is paid off, $2 billion a year more than if you simply provided shelter subsidies on existing units. Over a 50-year period $100 billion more will be spent following your policy long-term than following what we are telling you that you should be doing.

How many more examples do I have to bring to your attention of an absolutely wasteful, failed Liberal housing policy that is leading to the bankruptcy of this province and destroying the opportunity for many more families to get the kind of assistance we could provide? How much longer?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party can make what comments he wishes about the Liberal administration of the non-profit housing program; the administration by this government is a good deal different. In fact, the non-profit housing program is operating in quite different circumstances, because costs have gone down. The capital costs of investments in non-profit housing have gone down significantly.

The report on which the leader of the third party is basing his allegations that in the long term the non-profit housing program is not an effective or cost-efficient kind of program for us to be carrying on in the province of Ontario is based on assumptions which are just absolutely not acceptable. If he would like to sit down with the Ministry of Housing and discuss how we use the same assumptions and come to different conclusions, quite reasonably, we'd be glad to provide him with that information.

What he is suggesting is that we stop all non-profit housing programs in this province, like the government in Ottawa to which he was related did. We reject that. We find now that in the private rental market in Ontario about 37% of the households are already paying their rent bills with social assistance money. How much more does he want to put into paying private landlords when we don't get access to a public asset which can go on for decades in terms of providing cost-effective housing in Ontario?

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. At the beginning of my question I want to express what I can only call outrage that the minister did not make a statement in this House today with respect to the whole question of user fees. He chose instead to drop on my desk, and presumably that of the critic of the Progressive Conservative Party, a change in the government's position on this important issue on a day when we have had groups representing children's services organizations here giving a press conference and when there will be a debate this afternoon.

This letter should have been a ministerial statement in this House so that we could have had an appropriate amount of time to respond to it. Frankly, I am surprised that the minister chose that approach to take. I think it was wrong.

My question remains the same because, Minister, your letter, carefully couched as you have tried to make it, does not respond to the fundamental issues. Let me remind the minister that earlier today representatives from a broad coalition of children's services organizations held a news conference to protest this minister's plan to impose user fees, starting next Monday, November 1, on the most vulnerable in our society: children. Later today, we are sponsoring an opposition day motion which is also directed against the plan.

Minister, despite this letter which you have belatedly deposited, will you commit here and now in this House to the children of this province that you will completely withdraw your plan to impose user fees on essential and legislatively mandated children's services?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): We'll have a chance later this afternoon to debate this more fully given that, as the member has indicated, there is an opposition day motion on this issue. I'll be happy to get into more details then than the time allows during the question and answer period.

But let me just say to the member that what I think we have done as a result of the discussions that have taken place with the associations is, on the one hand, clarify that we are not talking about imposing user fees, that what we are talking about is in fact trying to sort out some greater consistency in the policy that is now being applied by some agencies, to have parental contributions in both the non-residential and residential areas of services, and making it very clear that those are where parents can contribute, and very clearly not at the basis of service being provided; in other words, that service is not being tied to the provision of those contributions.

Secondly, we have responded to the issue and the concern about the time lines by suggesting that the dollar target that had been set for this year will be reduced and that the implementation time line will start on January 1 of next year.

Mr Beer: All I can say is bafflegab is bafflegab. A user fee is a user fee is a user fee is a user fee. That's what this government's policy is.

Minister, at the press conference this morning, Mary McConville, who is the executive director of the children's aid organizations in Ontario, quoted directly from your own Premier's Council report on user fees as follows:

"The healthy rich thus stand to gain the most from the introduction of user charges and the sick poor stand to lose the most. Viewed this way, well-intentioned advocates of user charges seem more like the Sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood."

Minister, you have an opportunity to put on the mantle of Robin Hood and to say today that this whole nonsensical plan, which was brought in without any consultation whatsoever with those who are providing children's services and the young people themselves, will not go forward. Use the opportunity I am giving you here and now and say: "We are not going forward with this plan. We are going to sit down with the children's services organizations and try to see in a cooperative way how in fact we can resolve the issue."

I cannot believe that the New Democratic Party is saying that the way to go in children's services is to bring in and impose user fees, because that's what you mean by parental contributions: user fees. Minister, will you withdraw?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me say first that however one might want to categorize the issue of user fees and parental contributions, and we can get into that again, I think the member across would probably be the last person in this Legislature who should be dictating to me and to others in this House on the issue of user fees.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What a weasel. I don't believe them. You've got class.

Hon Mr Silipo: If I may be permitted to just read back a few words that might be familiar to the member, they go as follows:

"The reform of long-term care is an opportunity to develop a consumer charging policy that is both compatible with service objectives and contributes to the cost of providing services. People will continue to pay all or part of the cost of some services."

That's in a document entitled Strategies for Change, which went out in 1990, dealing with comprehensive reform of Ontario's long-term care services, signed among others by Charles Beer, the then Minister of Community and Social Services, so he's the last person I'm going to take lessons from on this issue of parental contribution.

What we are doing in this area is trying to implement not a system of user fees, which as I understand it is tying the provision of a service to the payment of a fee, but saying that if in the range of ways in which we are trying to look at how we can use the dollars most effectively there is a way parents can contribute to some extent to some services and that contribution is not tied to the delivery of service, in fact that thing can be done.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: Where that is impossible, we will be very clearly saying to the agencies that those dollar savings can come from other areas. That's what we're saying to them now.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What the minister's just referred to has nothing to do with the provision of children's services and he knows it. He is attacking the most vulnerable --

The Speaker: The honourable member knows that he does not have a point of order. New question.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Will you ask the Minister of Transportation to withdraw his characterization of the member for York North as a weasel?

The Speaker: Order. To the honourable member for Halton Centre, indeed, if I had heard the word which she claims was used, I would have asked the member for Lake Nipigon to withdraw.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will take responsibility for the excess in terms of language with a great deal of pleasure, if you only knew, for I have too much respect for the members in this House. Therefore, I will withdraw the word "weasel."

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Attorney General. It's related to a man who was before a bail hearing with a justice of the peace in Hamilton on August 17, 1993, charged with sexual interference with a 13-year-old boy, anal intercourse, forcible confinement and also breach of probation. Probation dealt with a previous conviction involving sex with a minor.

Minister, your crown referred this individual to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, which is a minimum-security hospital, for psychiatric assessment prior to his day in court. Subsequent to that referral, he walked out into the public and the very next day was charged with the sexual assault of a six-year-old boy in a Hamilton public school.

Minister, why would your crown send a man, a convicted paedophile whom the police didn't want out on bail, why would your crown send such an individual to a minimum-security hospital where he simply walked out and once again attacked an innocent young child?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I have been made aware of the case and I share the member's concern. I do not know why the referral was not to a more secure forensic unit such as that at the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, and I have asked the ministry to look into the matter and advise me as to what we can do to ensure that there is due care always exercised in these cases.

I believe, however, very firmly that in this matter, as in others, there was certainly a belief that there was a secure enough situation and a real concern for the individual that psychiatric assessment was a required part of the case.

Mr Runciman: The minister and her colleagues the Solicitor General and the Premier frequently talk a good game when it comes to concern about public safety, but the facts don't bear them out. Witness the Ontario parole board's revolving-door operation.

I want to say that the minister can do something very clearly in respect to this situation. We had a convicted paedophile placed in a unit which is primarily used to assess people for depression in a minimum-security facility when the Queen Street 16-bed secure facility is available 45 minutes away. St Thomas, as she mentioned, is an hour away. Under the Mental Health Act, the minister will know that any psychiatric facility can be ordered by the courts to assess patients in respect to their fitness to stand trial. Her crown could have done that.

We are told that OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, put in a grievance two years ago complaining about these kinds of individuals being referred to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. This isn't something new, this has been around for a while and your government should have been aware of it.

I ask the minister, if she wants to do something, will she today commit herself to directing crowns to specify that violent or sexual offenders be delivered only to secure facilities for psychiatric assessment, facilities where there are at least some locked doors between such people and their potential victims?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have no hesitation in saying to the member that that is certainly appropriate. However, each case is different, and it is important in each case that in directives that are given by the Attorney General to crowns, the particular circumstances and the particular issues at hand are also taken into account, as they would be by the court itself. The court accepts recommendations from the crown, but the court also makes decisions, and it is really important that we be aware that whatever the directives that might go to the crown, it does not bind the court. We need to be very clear about that.

However, I can be very, very clear with the member that I have no problem in saying to him that I share his concern and that this is a matter that the ministry is aware of and is committed to dealing with as rapidly and as completely as possible.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I've been approached by several pharmacists in my riding concerned about the provisions in Bill 81 which will make permanent amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

On July 26 of this year, you assured this House that pharmacists would be fully consulted prior to any changes being made to the dispensing fees. Could you please inform the House how far those consultations have gone and give us an update?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that I certainly know that members of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association are concerned about Bill 81, which is a treasury bill and a bill designed to help us meet some of our fiscal targets.

With respect to his specific question about consultations around dispensing fees, those discussions have been ongoing. The difficulty has been that earlier this year the pharmacists requested a 3% increase in their fees, and at a time when we were looking to hold the line, if not reduce the payments to people who receive their remuneration from the taxpayers, that was inappropriate. The change to the dispensing fee occurred after the pharmacists' association had decided that it did not want to sign the social contract.

I certainly have met with them. I am aware of their concern, and I remain optimistic that the pharmacists' association may well decide that for the last two years of the social contract it would like to be part of that arrangement with the government.

Mr Hayes: The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has proposed three amendments to

section 5 of Bill 81, and the pharmacists in my riding and I'm sure all the members' ridings would like to know whether or not you accept these amendments and will therefore make changes to Bill 81.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to tell the member that I met about a week ago with the representatives of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They of course raised this question with me, and I indicated to them that I was certainly aware of their proposed amendments and would look at them with an open mind when the Treasurer came to call Bill 81 before the House.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour, and it concerns the much-talked-of workplace health and safety organization. I was surprised the other night to be at a meeting in my part of eastern Ontario with various representatives from the Forest Products Accident Prevention Association, an organization that has now been subsumed under the Ontario Natural Resources Safety Association.

These men and women, representing hundreds of people in my part of eastern Ontario, were very, very angry, and in my view justifiably so, because on the orders of Paul Forder and others at the Ontario head office of the workplace health and safety organization, any one of those employers in the forestry sector who did not have an organized business was summarily dismissed from any position on the board of directors of that sectoral safety organization.

Minister, is it the policy of your government that you cannot be a member of any board of directors in any sector in this province if you do not represent an organized shop?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): It's a bipartite board and it's made up on recommendations of both labour and management at the workers' health and safety agency.

Mr Conway: That's a very skilful non-answer. Two years ago, my colleague the member for Mississauga North in the Ministry of Labour estimates specifically questioned the then and the now Minister of Labour for Ontario, the member for Hamilton East, on this very sensitive question. Two years ago -- it was June 26, 1991 -- someone named Bob Mackenzie said it was not the policy of the Rae government to disqualify non-union representatives from those positions.

I repeat, members of the Ottawa Valley lumber representatives have been dismissed from their positions on that sectoral safety association on the specific direction of Paul Forder, who said it is now government policy that you cannot sit on any board of directors if you do not represent a unionized, organized shop. Bob Mackenzie said two years ago that government policy would contemplate both union and non-union representatives.

What is current government policy, and what am I to say to those men and women in my part of eastern Ontario who are very committed to workplace health and safety as to whether or not they can return to those leadership positions?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again, I will repeat what I said earlier, and that is that it's a bipartite agency and the recommendations to the board come from management and from labour.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question as well is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. My leader, Mike Harris, raised the question with you two weeks ago and we've raised several questions in the interim with respect to your expenditure control plan and its impact on children's services in Ontario.

As you know, there has been quite a lot of concern and in fact outrage from families who are learning for the first time that they were being called upon to expand user fees for essential services to children. An additional concern is the wholesale seizure by your government of the family allowance, or the baby bonus for want of another word, moneys that are earmarked as a trust for children, and especially vulnerable children, in this province.

Minister, I asked you on October 14 if you would get some answers to some legal questions and in your meetings subsequent to October 14 with the user groups who are advocating on behalf of children to clarify these issues. When I read your memo today, you offer no legal clarifications. You said you would undertake to clarify them for the House. Are you ready to do that today, if not in question period in the debate this afternoon?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm certainly prepared to provide some information now, and we can get into more detail in the debate this afternoon.

On the question of the family allowance, the children's special allowance, what we indicate in the letter, and this is the course that we intend to pursue, is that we will be calculating the differential in the increase, the $33 increase in the allowance that agencies are entitled to collect.

The important thing that has to be underscored is that what we are doing here is not introducing a new practice, that agencies have been able to collect these allowances for as long as they have existed. The problem has been that some agencies have collected them and others have not. But those that have collected them have reported that amount to the ministry and each year in their budget have had deducted a similar amount. So it's not introducing a new phenomenon.

The only issue that's left on that front with respect to the expenditure control plan measure is the fact that we had very clearly overestimated the amount of money that was being collected. In other words, more was being collected than we thought. So we had to make some adjustments on that front in terms of the calculations that we would put in place. This is what we would be planning to work out with the agencies involved in terms of finding other ways in which we could make up the difference in the constraint.

Mr Jackson: We're talking about the seizure of $7 million which these agencies have been collecting from the federal government on behalf of children because of their special needs and in being cared for in this province. What your government proposes to do is to say that you're going to take that money away from the agencies who pass it on directly to the children. Your intention in your expenditure plan shortfalls these agencies by $7 million in this year, and more money next year.

You have not retracted from that position and your response today only complicates the matter, does not clarify it for these families. Your government, when in opposition with the Liberal government of the day, had some strong words about user fees and the Canada Health Act. The government insisted that, in Canada, the provinces were not to tamper with the intention of the legislation.

I'll ask you one more time for your legal understanding of the Children's Special Allowances Act, federal moneys that flow to children in need. You're about to capture those dollars and shortfall those budgets.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: When will you give a proper legal answer to the questions we've raised? Frankly, Minister, I think it's illegal what you're attempting to do -- and God knows it's immoral -- to the children and families affected, the way you're stealing this money.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would find it very odd, if what we are doing is continuing a practice that's been in place for many years, probably even going back to the time the Conservatives were in power, that no agency would have, up until now, said this was something that was inappropriate or, to use the word the honourable member has used, even illegal.

There is nothing illegal, as far as we are aware, on this issue. What we are talking about is a way of calculating some allowances that agencies are entitled to collect from the federal government, which in some cases they have collected and in other cases they have not.

The honourable member also made a point about these allowances being passed on to children. Let me be clear that I think he must be mixing up a couple of different things, because these allowances are not passed on to children. These allowances are used by the agencies as part of their budget. That's why we require and want them to collect them. I think the issue of children's allowances that he's referring to is the issue of crown wards, which is another problem we are trying to deal with.

One final word: I know the member likes to continue to harp, as others have done, on the question of user fees. In my view, what we are doing is not instituting a user fee, because a user fee ties the provision of a service to a fee that people have to pay. What we are talking about here is looking at instances -- again, this is happening now -- where parents can contribute in some small way --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- to some of the services that are provided. That's very different from a user fee.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, the Alexandra Park community is one of more than 100 Ontario Housing Corp communities in Metro Toronto which house about 110,000 people. This housing stock is aging. Repairs take too long, and residents still lack meaningful input in how their housing is run.

Mr Sonny Atkinson, the president of the Alexandra Park Residents' Association, a 20-year community member, and many other residents of Alexandra Park have long advocated tenant self-management in response to these deep-seated problems. Last week I attended a meeting with residents where they voted to explore self-management. My question to the minister is, will you support them in their call for self-management?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member for Fort York mentions Mr Sonny Atkinson, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting myself, and the fine work that's been going on in the Alexandra Park community. In fact, the Planning Together process, which we initiated just about a year ago in Ontario Housing Corp communities across the province, is one which is intended to support tenants' involvement in decision-making within their own communities, and we are indeed extremely supportive and offer every encouragement possible to have tenants involved in the decision-making.

Mr Marchese: The Ontario Housing Corp is currently reviewing its governance, and I understand that self-management will be considered under a new governance strategy. Minister, what will you do to ensure that self-management will be one of those options available to tenants and local housing authorities, and will you ensure that this option will be placed on the table soon?

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are many levels of involvement by tenants that are possible within Ontario Housing Corp communities. They range from advisory committees to committees which would actually be given a budget and allowed to make all the decisions for the operation of the community, right through to some suggestions we've had that in fact the ownership of the community could change, for example, in the formation of a co-op group.

As I understand it, the Alexandra Park proposal is in the middle range in which tenants would be looking for control of their own budget and decision-making of their own budget. I understand also they have received approval in principle from Metro Toronto Housing Corp to do that, in which case they have all the clearance they need to go right ahead, work with the Metro Toronto Housing Corp and go ahead and move to the kind of self-management they're talking about.

PETITIONS

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tenants suffer undue hardship when landlords break an obligation to provide vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water; and

"Whereas most municipalities are not fully empowered to compel such landlords to rectify the matter;

"We, the undersigned, hereby request that the government of Ontario enact David Turnbull's private member's bill,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of Vital Services Bylaws, to give Ontario municipalities the authority to quickly restore vital services to occupants of rented premises when landlords fail to do so."

This is signed by hundreds of people from my constituency. I too affix my signature to it.

TUITION FEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition.

"To the honourable provincial Parliament of Ontario, in Parliament assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned students of Sir Sandford Fleming College, Frost campus, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has decided to increase post-secondary tuition;

"Whereas Ontario residents deserve high-quality, affordable and accessible education;

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to urge the government of Ontario to repeal its decision to increase tuition, or at the very least freeze tuition at current levels.

"As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

This petition is signed by over 300 students of the Frost campus. I am presenting it in the absence of a member for Victoria-Haliburton.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of people here. I don't know if Steve Langdon's name is on it, but I'll read it anyway. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to this petition, since I agree with its contents.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

DENTURE THERAPISTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition here to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario and respectfully submit that a denture therapist should be allowed to supply, repair and adjust partial dentures and deal directly with the public without the necessity of supervision by a dentist.

"We, the undersigned, petition the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support and pass the appropriate bill in its entirety."

I've signed the petition. There are almost 700 names here.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last Friday, four members of the student council of St Mary's high school and one of the teachers came into my office and presented me with a petition. The petition has 270 names on it. It says:

"We, the undersigned, are requesting that the Oxford County Roman Catholic Separate School Board approach the Ministry of Education to secure an allocation for a new site and facility for our students. The present facility is inadequate."

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support" the able-minded honourable member "Leo Jordan's private Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I will put my name to this and give full support to the able-minded and honourable member, Mr Leo Jordan.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm bringing this petition forward on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an

article which appeared in the September 14 issue of a local newspaper in Brock which threatened that the residents of Brock might lose their local OPP station.

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become a strong voice in their community, volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit to the Beaverton community; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton, as closure would be detrimental to the interests of the security, safety and wellbeing of all Brock township residents."

I fully support this and affix my signature to it as well.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I would like to point out to you that the people, the taxpayers, have gone around and collected 256 signatures on this petition because they feel so strongly about protection for the museums.

OPPOSITION DAY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Beer moved opposition day motion number 2:

Recognizing that, since taking office, the NDP government has consistently mismanaged the delivery of children's services and is now downloading the province's financial problems on to the most vulnerable in our society, children, through the lack of any clear direction for children's services including child care and the introduction of user fees for non-residential children's services delivered under the Child and Family Services Act;

And

whereas we have yet to see a comprehensive plan for the delivery and integration of children's services including child care, and those services funded through the Child and Family Services Act;

And

whereas this government promised to reform our existing child care system and better integrate services needed by children and their families;

And

whereas this government has not presented any plan regarding children's services;

And

whereas the government has not presented a plan that provides a clear direction for child care;

And

whereas those who deliver services funded through the Child and Family Services Act were not consulted prior to the decision to generate revenue through user fees for children's services funded under the Child and Family Services Act;

And

whereas parents and children who will be affected were not involved in consultation prior to the NDP government's decision to introduce user fees for children's services;

And

whereas no attempt was made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to collect information from the agencies involved regarding their ability to generate and collect such fees;

And

whereas it has been determined that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has in fact miscalculated the ability of the agencies affected to generate the expected revenue;

And

whereas MCSS officials have indicated that no specific formula was used to arrive at the figures of $4.3 million for the year 1993-94 and $6.7 million thereafter;

And

whereas the NDP government has not established a province-wide policy regarding user fees for similar services obtained by adults through any other ministry;

And

whereas the NDP government acknowledged during the social contract negotiations that the agencies funded under the Ministry of Community and Social Services should be allowed certain exemptions due to the essential nature of their services;

And

whereas the NDP government acknowledged during the social contract negotiations that the agencies funded under the Ministry of Community and Social Services (including child care and children's services) are vulnerable agencies in light of the increased demand for services and the low wages of staff;

And

whereas it is known that the families and individuals needing the services funded under the CFSA are those least able to pay and also those who will be most intimidated by an application process;

And

whereas it is estimated that over 80% of those affected presently live under the poverty line;

And

whereas the services are essential,

Therefore the Liberal caucus calls upon the government to immediately table in this House a comprehensive plan for the delivery and integration of children's services, withdraw from the decision to introduce user fees for children's services funded under the CFSA immediately, and present a plan for the reform of our existing child care system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): All recognized parties within the Legislature will share the time evenly.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm happy to rise today to participate in this important debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by my leader, Lyn McLeod. In my role as opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I am confronted almost daily with examples of this government's continued mismanagement of the social assistance system in this province. Parents, family members, care givers, front-line workers and care recipients have all shared their growing frustration as they try to cope with the personal difficulties in the face of government cutbacks which are arbitrary and often considered punitive.

The agencies' figures tell us that there are 13,000 children in care in Ontario, 10,000 of whom are in children's aid ward situations.

In this press conference this morning, Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies executive director Mary McConville said, "The application of user fees on citizens who need the public services offered by the Association for Community Living, young offender services, children's mental health centres, maternity homes, children's aid societies and others will at best be a regressive taxation of Ontario's poor." Those associations -- community living, young offenders, children's mental health centres, children's aid societies -- are the people we are talking about this afternoon.

"These people are the most vulnerable of our citizens," Mary continues, "who are facing serious and sometimes life-threatening crises, severe unemployment and financial stress." She went on to quote the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice, as the member for York North stated during question period: "The healthy rich thus stand to gain the most from the introduction of user charges and the sick poor stand to lose the most," and this is at the hands of an NDP government.

We are here today to talk about the latest policy initiative of a very important portfolio, the introduction of user fees for non-residential children's services which are delivered under the Child and Family Services Act, an initiative undertaken without research and with no input from the public. These measures will have a very serious impact on one sector of one ministry, a very focused group of agencies that serve the most vulnerable children in our society.

I have to ask myself, as others are asking themselves, why this government would take these punitive measures against children. Parents and front-line workers are asking: "Why target children's services in the Ministry of Community and Social Services? Why target counselling? Why target services for youth in secure custody? Why target parental support in the care of disabled children?"

I've been a teacher and a school trustee. I'm the mother of three and the grandmother of one. I spent much of my life living with and learning about children. It's an oft-repeated truism that our children are our best investment for the future, indeed for the future of our country, for the future of our families, for the future of our world. In fact, it has become almost a cliché in the statements of this government. This policy proves, however, that once again the words and music do not match.

I'd like to quote from a long-respected document and one of my favourites, To Herald a Child. In this wonderful report, Mr LaPierre shares his joy as he enters the world of children. He said:

"It was a marvellous discovery -- the discovery of the universe of children.... I was dazzled by the variety of activities and endeavours of children. Their creativity and concerns both enchanted and humbled me. The vibrations of affection they sent my way filled me with joy, while the complexity of their tasks made heroes out of them.

"Slowly and gradually I began to sense, to feel, to know a world the simplicity of which I had taken for granted all these years. I thank the children."

Mr LaPierre goes on to talk about Ontario's "other" children:

"There are children in Ontario who have particular needs beyond those characteristic of all children.... They are my special children...who could be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or have learning difficulties.... [They have] the same rights as any other child but [they have] special needs: the need for an early identification of difficulties, the need for uninterrupted educational experience, the need for special assistance to carry out personal tasks, the need to be with...peers in a child's regular environment should his" or her "handicap or disability permit."

It is from these "special children" we have just heard described so eloquently and their parents that the NDP government wants to collect user fees to solve the problems created by three years of fiscal mismanagement. The minister has not yet, even with today's letter in hand, given the parents or the front-line workers of this province or indeed the members of this Legislature any idea of what services will have to be paid for by the parents. Will it be children's protective services or mental health counselling? Who knows?

The fact that parents and care givers were not consulted prior to the decision to generate revenues through user fees for children's services is simply inexcusable. This government's record on consultation continues to deteriorate. In fact, I think the better word is "disappear."

The agencies which serve these children are only now being asked to provide data on what is possible, and yet we're told and we know by today's letter that these targets have already been established and the policy has already been determined. A front-line worker compared this to an employer asking that $10,000 be taken from the employee's salary, and then asking the employee, "How should I do that?"

Again today, with this last-minute letter that was dropped on our desks as question period began, agencies are being asked to assist in a process that from the very beginning, in the middle of the summer, has been disorganized, inconsistent, unsatisfying, lacking in framework and, may I say, particularly lacking in leadership and focus.

Parents and agencies are telling us that there is simply no money in their pockets and no money in their budgets to generate and collect user fees to bail out this Treasurer. They further tell us that collecting the federal child benefits to make up the extra money is not feasible because in most cases that is already being done.

If the government takes the time to really investigate, not just collect data on a form that's been recently distributed, if the government really takes the time to involve the people who deliver these important services on the front line, if the government takes the time to really talk to the parents and children who use them, the minister will be able to make an informed judgement.

I challenge the minister to do that today, not to shuffle off his responsibility as he's been doing for the last few months to the bureaucracy and the ministry, but to apply his time to this important issue. The minister then would be able to hold his information up to the scrutiny of those who provide the service and to the children and parents and families who depend on these crucial services on a day-to-day basis.

We have no idea where the government numbers come from; absolutely none. Today we're told the target is going to be lowered. Lowered to what? Beginning from what? At the moment, we're presented with the following figures: $4.3 million for the rest of this fiscal year; $6.7 million on an annualized basis in cash contributions to be made by parents -- by parents, I repeat -- towards non-residential services for their children in need. The memorandum from the deputy minister indicates that the plan is to retrieve, through user fees, some $11 million over the course of the next two years.

Agencies are being asked, after the fact, to help the government decide which of the essential services to cut. Then with the implementation date now being deferred perhaps to January 1, perhaps later, they're being asked to prepare to administer this whole process of user fees in which they have absolutely no experience.

This new revenue source is to come from all children and family service categories, including young offender services, including services to children with developmental disabilities. These user fees target vulnerable children. Vulnerable children are targets of user fees.

During the social contract process, the NDP government acknowledged that the people served by the Ministry of Community and Social Services were indeed different, were indeed increasing more rapidly than other needs within our system, and there were daily demands on services, services of a very important and crucial nature.

Very early on, I may say, this sector was recognized as the most underfunded, poorly resourced and poorly paid sector in the whole social contract process. Their expected contribution to the social contract was lowered almost immediately from $30 million to $10 million in recognition of the very real limitation to the cuts that could be made in services that were provided by this sector.

We are told that even this reduced contribution has resulted in the reduction of staff and services in many, many of the agencies, and I'm sure most members of the Legislature have in one way or another been made aware of that fact. Now this government, in its routinely contradictory manner, has returned to this sector that it recognized as being vulnerable. They have returned to get blood from a stone.

We have been told by the agencies involved that the impact of this user fee collection policy will be almost double the impact of the social contract to the sector. How contradictory. How illogical. These families and individuals come to the ministry for assistance because they cannot provide for the special needs of their children. We know in fact that 80% of the parents and families that the government is asking to pay for services are already living below the poverty line. If this was not so sad, it would be almost ridiculous.

Like all other parents, the parents of special-needs children have to provide clothing, food, transportation, school supplies, dental care and all the other ordinary necessities for their children. Even in the case of children in care, many of the parents and families already make in-kind contributions. Whether it is through their OHIP plans or whether it is through providing transportation, they make contributions to the necessities of their children.

The parents of special-needs children, as the phrase itself indicates, often require more transportation to medical appointments, assistive devices, home improvements to accommodate a disability and often greater personal care expenses, and the list goes on.

I ask, what has the minister had to say to these families? On October 7, the minister stated that these "cost-containment" -- isn't that a wonderful phrase? -- measures would make the system both "more accountable and fair." He said, "We are being very sensitive to the comments that people are making to us around this" issue. Sensitive? We don't know where he's going, we don't know his time lines and now today we don't even know what the targets are.

When my leader, Lyn McLeod, asked the minister on October 7, three weeks ago, to share with us some of the details of "exactly what children's services these user fees are going to be imposed on and what guidelines his ministry has now put in place in order to establish user fees for such services as counselling abused children, therapy for children with learning disabilities and a host of other services that are needed by children across this province," the minister could only say in response, "The decision about what types of services this fee will affect has not been made." Today, weeks later -- and we don't know how close the implementation is as of today -- we still have no answer to the basic question, even though today we have communication from that minister in our hands.

How can the parents, who are understandably apprehensive about this whole situation, and indeed the care givers, the front-line workers, trust the minister when he will not explain what he is talking about, what his real targets are, what his real process will be and indeed what he is talking about? The minister speaks of "voluntary" parental contributions to recreational and transportation costs, but many of the agencies tell us that the cutbacks to preventive programs such as recreation are already very deep and that transportation is in many cases already part of in-kind parental contributions.

I'd like to echo the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and ask the minister, as they asked him this morning, why this government would impose user fees only on children's services and not on adult services. That is a very important question. None of us who are looking at this matter can come up with any answer.

Another question posed this morning: How do these decisions reflect the government's value of children? We look at the policies of this government surrounding children and we certainly can join in with that question: How do these decisions reflect the government's value of children? What priority does this government give to the protection and treatment of children? Another very good question in October 1993.

This children's services user fee policy proves that this government has not given very much of a priority to Ontario's children. It is certainly a back-burner item. Any consideration given to the provision of children's services in the social contract negotiations has been negated, wiped out, obliterated by the imposition of this punitive user fee. The messages are mixed, contradictory and certainly not very comfortable.

If I may now briefly turn to the NDP government's policy on child care, a study in confusion and inefficiency, a policy on which we have had silence for over a year, the people of Ontario, most people, know that this government has budgeted $72 million to convert child care centres from the private sector to the non-private sector. Everyone in this chamber has been presented with that statistic. This very expensive, ideologically driven policy has not created one new child care space in this province $22 million into the project; $72 million the target, $50 million more to go and not one new space.

While 34,000 of Ontario's children stand in line for subsidized child care, the government narrows the criteria for subsidies. This unacceptable situation results in vacancies and over 14,000 spaces on a 34,000 waiting list.

NDP child care policy is a major assault on parental choice. The policy direction that we've been talking about here this afternoon is another major assault on parental choice because it's a major assault on parental resources and parental responsibilities.

I once again quote from this morning's press conference: "The minister's financial plan for children's services transfer payment agencies is not responsible. Our safety net services which serve the most vulnerable children in Ontario must have the resources to protect and to heal hurting children and families."

As we were reminded in this House by my colleague the member for York North, last week was the Week of the Child, and this year's motto was, "Cherish the children."

I urge this government to rethink this destructive tax, and that's what it is: a tax on the vulnerable children of Ontario to fill the provincial coffers at the expense of services which are essential to their health and wellbeing. I urge the government to cherish our children.

The Acting Speaker: Being that time is allocated, we do not have questions or comments. Further debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm pleased to join in this debate. It seems outrageous that we even have to debate this. I've found over the years I've run in provincial politics that when I came upon the New Democratic Party it always had this battle cry, "Make the rich pay." I have to say that this initiative and this suggestion fly so contrary to that philosophical statement that if it weren't so sad it would be laughable.

You're attacking the most vulnerable people in this province: young people. More importantly, you're attacking the most vulnerable people who are poor. You expect that by doing this you're going to be cutting back and perhaps reducing the deficit in this province. Certainly, reducing the deficit is commendable, but my God, to do it on the backs of young people, young poor people, is absolutely outrageous. I'm surprised that this government has the audacity and is not totally ashamed by what it's trying to do.

The money that you're saving now on the backs of young people, young poor people, is perhaps going to result in savings monetarily now, but down the line it will result in disaster to these young people. What you're saving now will fill our institutions, our correctional institutions, will perhaps fill the need for mental health care in the future for these young people.

Many of these young people are trapped. They're trapped in abusive families; they're trapped in sexually abusive families; they're trapped because they have a learning disability or they have some mental disability. What in fact you're doing is ensuring that they'll be trapped in there for ever. I find it absolutely outrageous that any government could have a conscience and do something like that. I urge the minister not to look at that. Children are our most precious commodity. What you're doing is denying them any future. I find that absolutely outrageous.

You people over there, for some reason, consider looking into matters, having all sorts of committees to review and discuss; that seems to be the order of the day. I suppose it creates a lot of activity among people who perhaps are looking for some type of employment, perhaps people who are associated with your government. Yet on this particular issue you did very little, if any, consultation. You simply decided, "Well, they'll be treated the same way everybody else is in this province in terms of cost reduction." I suggest to you that was a very foolish act.

You didn't take into consideration for one minute whom you were taxing, the nature of that taxation on these young people and the future effects and impacts on the young people in this province.

I find it absolutely impossible that a government that said, "Tax the rich," has now changed its battle cry to "Tax those who can least afford to fight back," the children of this province.

I found it interesting, just as an aside, that children are entitled to be examined by a psychiatrist at a very large amount, sometimes between $100 to $150 an hour. There is no provision under OHIP for psychologists, yet in the final analysis psychologists are sometimes more beneficial to young people in terms of looking after their mental health needs than psychiatrists. I've preached that in this House many times and I don't see that the Minister of Health has changed that at all.

So what do you do? You add insult to injury by taking the children's aid societies of this province, which are mandated, required by law to look after the children who are in need, and saying to them, "On the one hand, you're required by law to do this, but we're going to cut back the money you're entitled to." I say shame; that is absolutely shameful.

Any member of the government who votes for this type of initiative should certainly hang his or her head in shame at the fact that they are doing nothing more than simply deferring the cost to the future of this province. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services will find in the future -- assuming you're still the government in the future, which I doubt, particularly with the insensitivity you're demonstrating in this particular policy procedure -- that you're deferring those costs down the line to be assumed in the budgets of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and minister of corrections, perhaps even the health care system.

I find it interesting that a blue panel, or perhaps it's an orange panel, did an extensive report on user fees for the Premier's Council on Health. Yet what did you do, Minister, in terms of determining whether or not this most sensitive area could afford to take a reduction in cost? If one can say that the Treasurer, in requesting or demanding that of these organizations that deal with the poor children of our province, did it with a decent heart, I have to say to him he's Scrooge. I suggest to you that this is something I don't think the people of this province are going to stand for.

Children's aid societies raise money on their own. I'll be attending a fantasy auction which is put on by the children's aid society. They do their own fund-raising, yet the government is prepared to take away, in a sense, indirectly all of the efforts on the part of these people. There are thousands and thousands of volunteers who are involved with children around this province. You're indirectly taxing them, because what you're saying is, "Keep on collecting, keep on having fund-raisers, but that money will be siphoned off by the Treasurer of this province."

I suggest to the Treasurer that he had better take a good, hard look at this and decide that this is an exception. It's unacceptable to the opposition. It's unacceptable to any sensitive-minded provincial person in this province that they would allow you to get away with this.

So I suggest, Minister, that you do one of two things: Place it on hold and give these people breathing space despite the fact that it may interfere with the social contract and the reductions that the Treasurer has mandated; or take a look at it, try to sit down with these people and determine just how you can do it in a way that will be least offensive and least destructive to these young people.

I find it absolutely outrageous that you would claw back something that the federal government -- indirectly, you're trying to get at the federal government. You're saying, "All right, federal government," and this is always your complaint, perhaps a legitimate one in the past with the former federal government. "You're cutting back on transfer payments. Therefore, we have to make up the shortfall."

I suggest to you, Minister, that that is indirectly taking out of the pockets of the service agencies the moneys that are in fact legally theirs that are provided by the federal government and have always been provided by a sensitive, caring Canadian community to deal with people who can least look after themselves.

As was said this morning, I believe, in one of the questions and perhaps was quoted by one of the presenters at the press conference, you are in fact turning the whole principle of Robin Hood around. You are acting like the Sheriff of Nottingham and you're stealing from these people. I suggest that you look at that closely.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): If you want to be serious, don't bring Robin Hood into it.

Mr Callahan: The member interjects. I don't this is funny at all. I think it's probably one of the most serious debates we've had in this House.

It seems as though the government is just biding its time. They figure that if they bide their time and just listen to the opposition try to indicate to them how they feel and how I think most Ontarians feel, then, "Get on with it. Once it's over, we'll just go ahead and deal with it." I'll tell you, that kind of steamroller activity on the part of any government -- we just saw the results of that in the last federal election. They were decimated because of that attitude, that totally, totally insensitive attitude to the people of this country, and I suggest the same thing will happen to you people.

I don't really believe that has to happen. I believe this is an issue that can be resolved. I believe it's an issue where if you really think about it, you'll recognize that in fact what you're doing is you are treating the least able people in this community to look after themselves -- take the question of their access to perhaps some type of service. If the people cannot afford to pay for that, if there's going to be a user fee, they may very well decide not to take advantage of that particular service. What's the net result of that? The net result of that is there will be children reduced perhaps to the streets, perhaps reduced to the things we see in Toronto with child prostitution.

We'll see children growing up with a bad feeling for themselves because what you've done is you've denied them access at the earliest and the most sensitive times of their lives in terms of receiving that type of treatment and care and sensitivity. You may have doomed them to live in an atmosphere in their homes which is totally counterproductive, that's sexually abusive, violently abusive or whatever type of abusive.

You people seem to have money for all sorts of things, things that many of the Ontarians in this province object to, and here you are denying this money to these children, cutting back from them, cutting back from the agencies, and in fact not seeming to think it's necessary to consult with them to find out what their views are. They are the professionals, Minister.

Your bureaucrats may think when they hear the whip cracked by the Treasurer that they have to respond. Well, I suggest to you that you should be down there in the trenches personally, speaking to these people. It's your responsibility. You're the one who has to go home and live with that responsibility. You have to live with the results of it. You may never see it for 10 or 15 years, but I think you're an intelligent person and I think you can recognize that the money you save now on the backs of the poor youth of this province will in fact come back to be paid probably 10 times over in the future. That's hardly a legacy for the province of Ontario.

So I suggest that you go back to the NDP battle cry of the past: Don't make the poor pay, particularly the youth of this province, our greatest product, people who can perhaps pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they're given the proper support. You're taking those supports away. You're in fact reducing them to the category of "Let them eat cake." That's unsatisfactory.

It's kind of along the lines of one piece of legislation that was brought before this House and then withdrawn, but I understand it may be back on the table: the question of services to the learning-disabled. You'd be amazed at the number of young people in this province who have learning disabilities. Many of them can't even find that out because they can't afford to go to the proper place to have that determination made. In the case of poor children, they in fact will be getting that type of treatment and consultation and investigation through children's aid societies.

Will children's aid societies have to defer and not have that done? Will children's aid societies just have to shut their eyes to the fact that there may be young men and young women out there who will grow up having less than the benefits of you and I because they weren't able to get an examination? Very possibly.

Will there in fact be children whom the children's aid society will not be able to investigate fully? Perhaps. Will there be children who will remain in those atmospheres for which the children's aid society was originally enacted, to take them to a place of safety when they were in need of protection? Are we in fact denying them that, Mr Minister? I suggest we are.

I give the children's aid societies great credit and I give all the other agencies great credit, because they have the tenacity and they have the devotion to try to work this out themselves, even though you're amassing great cutbacks from them. But for God's sake, talk to them. Work out something that's going to be the least offensive and the least oppressive and the least demeaning to the young people of this province. If the minister and the government of the day don't do that, then I suggest that of all the things they've done thus far that they may be proud of, they've failed totally and they've failed with reference to people who can least defend themselves.

Very often there are partisan statements from this side of the House. This is not partisan, Mr Minister. This is the reality that you're creating by not looking at this in a very different way, and by the Treasurer not looking at it in a very different way, than you do with any other organization or any other program that's going on in this province.

I suggest you think twice about it, give some thought to it, recognize that it's the little ones of the world you're in fact condemning, perhaps to a future of poverty, perhaps to a future of incarceration, perhaps to a future of crime, and I suggest you think hard about that. I think if all members of the government think hard about that, you'll urge your cabinet and you'll urge your caucus colleagues to withdraw this foolish measure and return to what I thought was once the battle cry of the NDP, "Make the rich pay." Don't make the poor little girls and boys of this province pay, not just now but for the future.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to add a few comments today, and I know my colleague from Burlington South will be speaking in considerably more detail, but I was most impressed with the statement from Mary McConville earlier. She's the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and she made a representation on behalf of the children and the young people of this province of Ontario. Those are the people who are the topic of this particular debate this afternoon.

She was representing associations such as the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, the Ontario Association of Children's and Youth Institutions, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, the Ontario Association for Community Living, the Ontario Contract Observation and Detention Homes Association and the Provincial Council of Children's Services Coordinating and Advisory Groups.

They are most concerned, and indeed this House should be most concerned, about the mandatory imposition of user fees in the collection of children's special allowance on the most vulnerable people, the children of the province of Ontario. I share and my caucus shares the deep concern that she has expressed in that regard.

She's pointed out that the recession over the last few years has taken its toll in particular on the children and families, and thousands of children indeed are on the waiting lists for children's mental health services and the children's aid societies. Unfortunately, because of the shortage of funds, some doors are having to be closed.

Earlier in a conversation, I've been made aware of children at an early age of two to three years old who unfortunately have witnessed conflict within their families and as a result have behavioural problems, and these are the perhaps 7,000 children who are on the waiting list for some sort of assistance. I think, frankly, the government's initiative should be directed in that regard rather than in terms of collecting the fees.

I would like to speak about one other specific area of services that really concerns me with regard to the young people of the province of Ontario in my period of about 10 minutes, I believe, that I have to speak.

The provision of day care services in Ontario, as with all other services, must be delivered in a well-managed and cost-efficient manner. Unfortunately, today the method of delivery is being shaped by political ideology, and consequently it is not being delivered to meet the needs of the children or the parents or the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): That's easy for you to say.

Mr David Johnson: That's easy for me to say, I know. But the problems are not recent, and I must say, speaking on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto and as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto council, I can remember back to 1987 and 1988 when in Metro Toronto we were attempting to deliver children's services, day care services, at a most efficient rate for the taxpayers of Ontario. We had deputations before us pleading with us to meet the need for day care services within Metropolitan Toronto, and there literally are in the vicinity of 30,000 families waiting today for a subsidy for day care services.

Back in 1987-88, we had those sorts of deputations and we, as a regional council within Metropolitan Toronto, attempted to meet that need. We expanded the services. We worked as closely as we could with the Liberal government of that day, I must say, and yet there was a problem that developed. The problem pertained to the funding of day care in Metropolitan Toronto, and there was an impasse.

That impasse developed around the number of day care spaces that would be funded by the provincial government of that day. They were unwilling to fund the number of spaces that Metro had put into place. They were also unwilling to fund some of the additional administration costs associated with the day care program and they were unwilling to fund some of the pay equity initiatives that Metropolitan Toronto put forward.

As a result, the Metropolitan corporation had to pick up the full tab for $6.5 million worth of day care services that the Liberal government of that day, back in 1988, would not recognize. The municipal property taxpayer had to pick up that tab.

The Liberal motion that's before us talks about downloading. I can tell you as a member of the regional council in that day and age that we felt the severe impact of downloading from that government on to the people of Metropolitan Toronto the shortfall of $6.5 million. What happened was that this shortfall, year in and year out, has carried on to different degrees such that today the accumulated shortfall in the provision of services in day care in Metropolitan Toronto is $12 million.

The $12 million should be shared on a formula basis: 50% from the federal government, 30% from the provincial government and 20% from the property taxpayers of the local council, in this case, Metropolitan Toronto. Instead, the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto are picking up or have picked up that full amount. That didn't start with this current government. That downloading on to the local taxpayer started in 1988 under the Peterson government.

This year the Metropolitan Toronto government is estimating that the shortfall will be another $2.5 million, which represents about 500 spaces in Metropolitan Toronto, so there again the problem carries on.

Before my time runs out, I want to comment on the other very unfortunate aspect of the day care situation right across this province, frankly, but I'll highlight it in Metropolitan Toronto. The day care program should be tailored to meet the needs of the parents, the needs of the children, and of course it has to be affordable.

The problem that's happening in Metropolitan Toronto is that because of the philosophy of the current government, the government is attempting to force some of the providers of day care out of business. Those are the commercial operators. There are many commercial operators; about one third of the spaces in Metropolitan Toronto indeed are provided by the commercial operator.

They have provided an excellent service to the taxpayers, and they do so at a minimal cost. They provide all the toys, the equipment. I've been in a number of these commercially operated facilities and they run excellent programs. The parents often choose a commercial operation. The commercial operators are sometimes in areas that are not served by the non-profit sector. They're handy to the residents in many cases.

In this day and age, when we are short of funds to provide services to our young people, we should take maximum advantage of all the different components, including the commercial operators. But what's happening? They're being forced out. This government has determined that private business is to be discouraged, that only the non-profit sector can provide the proper services in day care. Well, of course the parents don't agree with that. The parents willingly accept the commercial operators.

The commercial operators are being forced out in a number of ways. One is that the subsidies are now being directed only towards the non-profit sector, no longer to the commercial sector. Secondly, what they call direct operating grants, grants directly aimed at the employees as a wage subsidy, are only fully eligible for the non-profit sector. In the commercial sector, those in operation before 1987 are eligible for a 50% grant and those after 1987 are not eligible for any grant, so the financial pressure is on.

Other grants for toys and equipment and startup costs are only available to the non-profit sector and are not available to the commercial sector. Pay equity, which is more than likely being forced on the day care operators early next year, will have a tremendous impact on the commercial operators. They are being compared to the non-profit organizations, but the commercial operators pay less in many cases than does the non-profit sector. That's how they keep their costs down, the cost to the parent; they keep it down in that manner.

But what's going to happen with pay equity is that they will be required to put many of their salaries up and it's going to increase their costs and costs to the parents. It's going to put them in an unviable situation; they're going to be forced out of business. By comparison, the non-profit organizations will get a government grant, which is not available to the commercial sector, to assist with the pay equity.

My time has expired. Just to sum up, the treatment by this government of the commercial day care operators is very shortsighted. Not only are they forcing them out of business, but they are spending millions and millions of dollars to do it, and not only will it cost to force the operators out, some $76 million for conversion over the next three years, but the ongoing costs after that will actually be increased, and that'll mean we'll have less money to provide for day care operation in Ontario. To me, that is criminal. It's a waste of taxpayers' money.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased to participate in this debate.

I have a hard time understanding where the member Mr Beer is coming from with this resolution; it talks about the consistent mismanagement of delivery of children's services. I've had the pleasure of being in that ministry for three years now, and when I entered that ministry I took a perspective and looked at my own community. They used to have at one time what was called the Beer fund: "Don't worry about what you roll up at the end of the fiscal year. We'll reach into the Beer fund and bail you out, all the agencies in your communities."

I found it very hard to believe that this was going on in a lot of our communities, that staff was being extra-allocated but it wasn't being looked at as part of the operating budgets of those agencies, making sure they were providing services and doing it in a fiscal way.

I guess at that time, when the Liberals were in, we were dealing with good economic times and didn't have to worry about the pressures we are now faced with provincially in dealing with children's services. There have been studies done throughout this province about children's services. How many children are actually on a number of lists versus just one list? The system itself is fragmented and disordered.

I look in my own community. How many of them cooperate and communicate? I look at the agencies that provide children's services in my own community. We have a number of people who are providing services, but none of them integrate their services and work together. The system itself, from a community perspective, is out of whack. They need to work closer together.

Why do we have a director in each of the different agencies? We seem to be, as in good economic times, like firefighters out there trying to find out which one can come up with the best solution for our problem, instead of dealing with the problem at the beginning or trying to find an existing service that was already in the community and expanding its mandate and allowing it to deal with the community perspective.

This government has taken a positive approach in dealing with those initiatives. We're trying to bring those agencies together to work consistently with one another. Why is one agency doing the same as another? This is what the taxpayers have been yelling about. The taxpayers are saying: "Why is there duplication of services, not only federally, provincially and municipally, but municipally and provincially among themselves? Why a