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

June 6, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L084 - Thu 6 Jun 1996 / Jeu 6 Jun 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

AIDS TREATMENT

FOREST INDUSTRY

DARTS TOURNAMENT

NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP

ANNIVERSARY OF CHIN RADIO-TV

FORT ERIE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ECONOMIC STIMULATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ECONOMIC STIMULATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PAROLE OFFICERS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

PLEA BARGAINING

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO FARM IMPLEMENTS BOARD

AIDS TREATMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

HEALTH CARE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO HYDRO

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

ANCASTER BUS SERVICE

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

GASOLINE PRICES

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES NORMES D'EMPLOI

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Cooke moved private member's notice of motion number 20:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should introduce a bill of rights for Ontario children which, in keeping with the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Canada is a signatory, the spirit of Yours, Mine and Ours: Ontario's Children and Youth 1994 report of the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice, and the spirit of Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution, which promises community nutrition programs, a learning and earning and parenting program, homework assistance programs and child support enforcement, and that such a bill of rights for Ontario children should include the following principles:

(1) that every child has the right to a standard of living adequate for his or her physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development;

(2) that every child has the right to benefit from social security, including adequate social assistance where financial need exists;

(3) that every child has the right to benefit from accessible, high-quality child care services and facilities;

(4) that every child has the right to be protected from exploitation and abuse, whether physical, sexual, mental or emotional;

(5) that every disabled child has the right to enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community;

(6) that every child has the right to the highest attainable standard of health and access to health care services, including the provision of adequate, nutritious food and clean drinking water;

(7) that every child has the right to participate fully in cultural and artistic life with equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activities; and

8) that every child accused of an offence has the right to be treated in a manner consistent with promoting the child's sense of dignity and worth, reinforcing the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, and taking into account the child's age, reintegration and assuming a constructive role in society.

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

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I think it's particularly appropriate that this resolution is being debated today in light of the information that has come out publicly with respect to young offenders at Bluewater who were then transferred to the Elgin-Middlesex centre. More will be said about that, I'm sure, in the House later today, but I think it reinforces the fact that we're talking here about young people. We're talking about rights that need to be guaranteed in law and need to be respected by all of society no matter what a young person has done to bring them in contact either with the justice system or services that are needed to assist that young person.

I want to say that the resolution I have tabled and am asking support for from the Legislature today I believe sets out objectives not only for government, although government obviously has to show the leadership, but for all of our society: business, labour, our entire community. If this objective of society's was set out, we could all work together to achieve these goals for the children of this province. It's time, in my view, that society was led by its elected leaders in the Legislature and set out these goals for our young people in the province.

I know there are some in this province who believe that government no longer has a major role to play and that every time government has gotten involved in something, it has failed. But, Mr Speaker, I want to say to you that all of us will remember that we, as a society, set out in the 1960s and the 1970s, as a goal, to eradicate senior citizen poverty in our country. By and large, that goal has been achieved because it became a priority for governments, it became a priority for individuals, it became a priority for our communities.

It became a priority every time people went to the polls to vote for their governments, because that was a number one objective of everyone who lived in our country. So when government and society and communities work together, we can achieve a lot. I believe it's not only in the best interests of children but in the best interests of all of society if we begin to set this as a major goal objective and that we direct programs.

I also want to say that the purpose of such legislation and I think its major accomplishment could be that it would set a measurement by which government can be measured about how it's achieving these goals and objectives and principles if a bill of rights was passed. That's been one of the problems. I don't believe we have set out common goals and objectives of what we want to achieve to overcome some of the difficulties our children are experiencing in our province. I want to run through just a few of the actual principles that we have included in this resolution.

The first one is "that every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for his or her physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development."

For years now, we have all talked, as politicians and others in society, about the need to eradicate child poverty in our country. It's time we did something about it. I believe that with the words that have been spoken by the current federal government that if in fact provinces jumped on board, there could be a national program directed at eradicating child poverty. This is pretty fundamental to any plan that would be put in place to assist children in our country and in our province.

"That every child has a right to benefit from social security, including adequate social assistance where financial need exists."

Of course that's tied in with (1). Where there are families that require assistance through the social assistance program, then that social assistance has to be adequate to live and to avoid poverty in our province.

"That every child has the right to benefit from accessible, high-quality child care services and facilities."

Access to education is fundamental to providing a future for our kids. The Royal Commission on Learning report, For the Love of Learning, said very clearly -- it's documented -- that for every dollar invested in our young children in the early years' programs, we can avoid $7 of expenditures later.

So when we talk about access to high-quality child care services, I think this puts child care in the proper context. Child care is not just a women's issue or an economic issue, it has primarily got to be seen as a children's issue in this province. Child care is not babysitting. Child care is early childhood education. So when you combine this with junior kindergarten programs and kindergarten programs and you have access to early child care facilities and early childhood learning opportunity, I believe you've increased opportunities, you've begun to move towards equalization of opportunity in our province.

Again, in 10 minutes you don't have time to respond to everything that was said in the Royal Commission on Learning report, but if you take a look at how they've documented the need for access to these types of programs, I think it is very compelling. I would finish on this comment by saying that if you want to put this in economic terms, I'd say don't look south of the border for models of how you treat children in their early years and access to child care and early childhood education opportunities; look to some of our other competition, for example, Europe where three-year-old programs in the education system are commonplace.

It may just be important for people, especially in the Conservative Party, to understand that maybe that's why quite often in worldwide testing, where we're compared to other jurisdictions, some of our kids don't do as well as students in European jurisdictions. Maybe that's because they are given opportunities at a much younger age, and they do better in literacy and numeracy than our kids because they've been exposed to it at an earlier age. That kind of investment is not ideological; it's practical. It's absolutely practical and important if we're going to compete in the world.

"That every child has a right to be protected from exploitation and abuse, whether physical, sexual, mental or emotional."

Again, I refer to what's been in the news in the last 24 hours. Young offenders still have rights. No matter how difficult it is for all of us to accept that, the fact is, a criminal whether a young person or an adult -- but here we're talking about children -- still has rights. They have rights when they're in our custody, especially, to be able to understand that they're not going to be physically abused.

I think that how the current government handles this situation in Bluewater and the Elgin-Middlesex centres over the next several weeks is going to, more than anything, define what this government believes not only about children involved in our justice system but about young people generally.

"That every disabled child has the right to enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community."

Again, there are programs that have been put in place over the years and need to be expanded, need to be strengthened in our province so that we can integrate entirely children who are physically or mentally challenged into our entire society. Unfortunately, with some of the cuts that are taking place in the Ministry of Community and Social Services and some of the cuts that are taking place in the Ministry of Education and Training, we are seeing steps being taken backward, not forward. Vulnerable children, disabled children, are the most vulnerable to these cuts.

"That every child has the right to the highest attainable standard of health and access to health care services, including the provision of adequate, nutritious food and clean drinking water."

When you take a look at the waiting lists now at some of our agencies in this province, our children's mental health programs in this province, the waiting lists have always been, for the last several years, unacceptably long. They're getting longer now because of the cuts. A child needs the intervention of a social worker or a psychologist or a speech pathologist. They may be waiting six months before they even get assessed, let alone a year to get treatment.

Time doesn't permit to go into all of how I feel about the need to proceed on this, but I ask members of the Legislature to take a look at this resolution, to take a look at the principles it sets out and today pass this resolution unanimously so that we as a Legislature can say that we believe in the rights of children, we're prepared to set this as a goal of this Legislature and we think society should set it as a goal.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to address the House on the issue raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside. Our children are important to all of us. I would like to comment on a number of the issues that have been raised.

Given the attention our government places on Ontario's children, I would like to remind the members of this House of some of the initiatives we as a government have taken to improve the lives of children in the province of Ontario. In the short time we have been in government, we have clearly demonstrated that children are a priority.

I must point out that there are several ministries working together towards improving services for children. The Common Sense Revolution clearly outlined the Premier's commitment to implementing a community nutrition program for school-aged children. Studies have found that there is a direct link between children who go hungry, that they tend to do poorly in class, are more disruptive and suffer more health problems. With leadership from the Premier and with private sector and volunteer support, a nutrition program will be implemented at little or no cost to the taxpayer.

Such a program will meet specific criteria: It will be accessible, it will be family- and community-driven and it will not compete with existing programs.

To that end, the May 7 provincial budget allocated up to $5 million this year in startup funding for the formation of a partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation for Families, to help parents and communities set up and expand local nutrition programs for elementary school children.

Raising children is a demanding job. Every Ontarian has an interest in making sure that young children start life in a healthy and secure environment. We all have a stake in their wellbeing.

By avoiding a large government bureaucracy, this partnership will ensure that the largest possible share of available funding, including donations from individuals and businesses in the community, goes directly to meeting children's needs. This $5-million commitment is a modest investment which will have big payoffs in terms of increased involvement by large corporations, small businesses and volunteers.

Our investment will ensure that communities have the tools and the support they need to get programs started and to sustain them over time without government funding.

Parents and communities will take the lead in identifying the need for child nutrition programs and in getting these programs up and running.

The government and the Canadian Living Foundation for Families will make sure communities have the support they need to develop local solutions. Volunteers will play a key role in providing the community nutrition programs.

As well, the government is working on a number of other initiatives designed to support children. For instance, the Attorney General's office is working on the family support plan. They are aiming to increase compliance and to make sure parents pay their child support. By doing so, we will improve child support and enforcement.

Some possible solutions could be the use of better technology and enhanced enforcement powers. Currently, there is over $900 million owing in arrears. We can and must do better for our children's sake.

The Ministry of Health has introduced a number of new initiatives which are going to enhance child health. We know children who receive a good start have greater opportunities and the possibility of a healthier, more productive life. To that end, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture will work collaboratively on a Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program. This represents a $10-million investment in children's health.

Another key initiative the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education are working together on is a $10-million investment, which will double to $20 million in future years, for new speech and language services for preschool children. Speech and language disorders are the most prevalent handicapping condition for about 10% of Ontario's children. Early speech and language intervention before a child enters a school has proven results. The government is investing in young children to prevent the need for far more costly intervention later.

The Ministry of Health is also investing $4.5 million in a measles immunization program and is expanding the $6 million hepatitis B immunization. So you can see that this government's commitment is to achieving the highest standard of children's health possible.

Given all that this government is doing for children and that the government is delivering on most of the items mentioned in the member's motion, we are committed to doing even more for children and we'll certainly support the member's motion.

I believe we have demonstrated our government's dedication to children. We are taking the necessary steps to ensure children are safe, well cared for, provided with excellent health care and have the opportunity to live a useful and productive life.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support of this resolution today because:

Contrary to what you just heard, this government's agenda does not include children in a meaningful or positive way. That's why this resolution is so important.

The Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Education and any other minister who is charged with the responsibility of protecting children are not ensuring our children's future or protecting the children of tomorrow. That's why this resolution is so important.

This government believes that children's agencies shouldn't be treated any differently than any other agency in government when these same children's agencies can't meet the demand now placed on them. That's why this resolution is so important.

This government's commitment to a 30% tax cut without regard for the needs of children is so blatantly and fundamentally flawed. That's why this resolution is so important.

In the year past, the year of the child, the Ontario child has been sacrificed by a government which doesn't understand the pain children experience. That's why this resolution is so important.

We shouldn't need to be debating this type of resolution in Ontario. It should be a fundamental, automatic right of a child to be protected by government policy. Government must, without reservation, ensure that the policy and direction it takes ensure the safety and fosters the positive growth of children in every area of growth -- in their physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. Governments are charged with that responsibility. If the government was fulfilling the mandate that it's charged to fulfil by the people of Ontario, we needn't have to debate this resolution. But this isn't the case.

Sadly, when you think of the children out there, we have to ensure that this resolution is passed, and passed unanimously, because we must protect children. We must protect children because of this government's policy. If we only look at

section 2 of the resolution, "that every child has the right to benefit from social security, including adequate social assistance where financial need exists," let's talk about the pain children experience.

The pain is real and the pain manifests itself in many different ways. If a child is hungry because of the welfare support to his parent being cut, that pain is real and that pain is immediate and that pain is intense.

The pain of being teased in the playground because you're not dressed like the other kids, because your parents can't afford proper clothing, that pain is real and that pain is immediate and that pain is intense.

When you're embarrassed at school because you can't afford to buy a piece of pizza on Pizza Day or you can't afford to Kris Kringle at Christmastime with the rest of your students because your parents don't have that extra few cents, that pain is real and that pain is immediate and that pain is intense.

Approximately 500,000 children have been hurt by this government's cuts to welfare -- 500,000 children hurt. The pain is real, the pain is immediate and the pain is intense.

There were 2,200 more children under 13 in families on social assistance last month than there were in August, and that pain is real and that pain is immediate and that pain is intense. There has been a 53% increase this year alone in the number of mother-led families in Metro Toronto who have had to turn to hostels for shelter. Tell me that the pain that these kids feel isn't intense, isn't immediate and isn't long-lasting. Forty per cent of the people on welfare are children. Tell me if that pain isn't immediate, if that pain isn't real and if that pain isn't intense.

Let's take a look. The member for Windsor-Riverside spent just a few moments talking about early childhood education. Let's take a look at what happens when you cut funding to the junior kindergarten program. There is no question about it, the people of Ontario clearly know that this government cut funding to junior kindergarten programs. They may say it's a local option; they've given no option. They have cut funding to junior kindergarten, and whether the death of junior kindergarten comes this year or next year, death is imminent.

Let's see what happens in the long term when you cut funding to programs like junior kindergarten. "Early childhood education programs provide the foundation upon which all later educational success is structured." Let me tell you, after being in the classroom for 30 years I know that to be a fact. "As outlined in the Royal Commission on Learning report, quality early childhood care and education has been identified as one of the four engines of change that should drive education reform:

"`Research findings and practice experience indicate that much learning takes place in the years before a child starts grade 1. We know that positive learning experiences help children to develop self-confidence and positive attitudes to learning and equip them with a strong foundation for the development of learning skills.'"

We're talking about programs that happen before grade 1. We're talking about junior kindergarten. We're talking about senior kindergarten programs.

"Quality early childhood education programs are the most practical strategy for the prevention of future problems for children in Ontario. Longitudinal research such as the Perry Preschool Project has found that children who receive quality early childhood care and education during their early years had significant higher levels of social, economic and emotional success by the age of 27. Compared with a control group, the adults from this study showed higher earnings by $2,000 per month; greater levels of home ownership; higher levels of high school graduation by 33%; lower incidence of arrests and convictions by 50%; lower incidence of dependence on social services by 50%."

Those are astounding figures and if the government would only look at these figures, they would know their agenda for early childhood education is flawed, is wrong. What you are doing is providing the pain I spoke about earlier, but you're not providing it for the short term. The pain that's going to be real, the pain that's going to be immediate, the pain that's going to be intense is also now going to be long-lasting because you haven't afforded the opportunity for children to get a proper foundation.

After being in a classroom for 30 years, I know only too well that if a child starts off with a secure and proper foundation, the child will grow in a very secure and proper way. The child will be positive towards learning, the child will experience success, the child will experience happiness and the child will experience the joy of learning, instead of the frustrations, instead of the hurt and instead of the pain that will be real, that will be intense and that will be immediate, as well as long-lasting.

I'm not happy to be able to stand up here today and have to support this type of resolution, but I know because I care for children, as I'm sure the members of both opposition parties care for children, and do you know what? Individually, I don't think there's a member on the government side who doesn't care for children. I don't believe for a second that what's happening to children in Ontario today is because any individual member of this House wants it to happen. It's because of a belief in a philosophy, in a Common Sense Revolution that makes no sense, that makes no perfect sense, that is flawed because of what the basis of the revolution is.

Fellow members of this House, our children are important. Our children are the future Ontario must build upon. Each child in Ontario is a biography. Each child will have a life story to tell. From its very early stage in that story, the story must start out on a happy note. In order to do that, children must have the security that their government will provide policies that protect them, that ensure their rights and ensure that they can grow in a strong Ontario and that they can be strong. Sadly, this is not the case; sadly, this is why I have to stand up in support of the resolution; and sadly, this is why this resolution has come forward today.

I would only hope that after this sad story is over, there will at least be unanimous consent that this resolution is important.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to support the resolution brought to the House by my colleague from Windsor-Riverside in favour of a Bill of Rights for Ontario Children. We know the United Nations has Canada as a signatory to the rights of the child convention of the United Nations and this resolution certainly follows from that.

My main concern is with items (5) and (7) in the resolution. Number (5) says "that every disabled child has the right to enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community."

My concern is that with the changes that are being made in the Ministry of Education and Training and the amount of money that's being taken out of education in one year, $1 billion in one year, it is going to be very difficult to provide special-needs children with the kinds of programs that are required to ensure that a disabled child will have the right to enjoy a full and decent life.

Boards across the province are cutting the number of teachers' aides and special assistants in the classroom that are required to enable disabled children to be integrated into the classroom and to be able to develop to their full potential. This is very, very alarming and it's happening right across the province.

We also see that in number (7) it says "that every child has the right to participate fully in cultural and artistic life with equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activities." Again, we see with the programs that are being cut by boards to meet the spending targets that are being imposed on them by the Ministry of Education and Training that it's these very kinds of programs that are being cut first.

Board after board across the province is cutting music programs; board after board is cutting drama programs.

Anything related to recreational and leisure time is seen as not being core to the program or not being central to the program that is necessary for a student to graduate, and as a result we, I think, are running the risk of severely limiting the exposure that children have to cultural and artistic life, and limiting their opportunities to determine what potential they might have for not necessarily going into those fields, but being able to appreciate them, being able to participate fully in the cultural life of their community by having some understanding of the wealth, the cultural heritage that we have coming from our own culture, our own heritage, the European heritage, the Asian, the African and so on around the world.

I commend my friend for introducing this resolution. I regret that the government apparently does not understand the need for a bill of rights in this province and I would urge that the government seriously consider the impact of the moneys that are being taken out of the education funding in this province, what effect the cancellation of junior kindergarten programs, special education programs, music, drama and other so-called non-core programs is having with regard to the convention of the United Nations, of which Canada is a signatory and which we I believe have an obligation to fulfil.

It's for that reason I urge the government to consider very seriously the implementation of a Bill of Rights for Ontario Children.

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I'm very pleased to rise to speak to this motion that our colleague from Windsor-Riverside has put forward today, to talk about the importance of children and the needs of children. There are many, many parents and grandparents in this caucus who understand and appreciate the importance and understand the anxiety and joy, that combination of feelings that only parents can truly appreciate. That's why we as a government have taken so many steps to try and protect children.

Some of the critics across the way like to describe our agenda as a jobs agenda --

Mr Wildman: No, it's not a jobs agenda, it's a cutting agenda; there are no jobs.

Mrs Ecker: -- and frankly, I don't think we need to apologize for that. I know they're hooting and hollering on that, but I think even their own Premier's Council, the last government's Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice talked about how employment is one of those indicators that helps healthy, stable families, and healthy, stable families are an important contributor to the health of children and one of the things that I think we need to be concerned about as a government and as a society.

But if a strong economy was this government's only concern, I suppose I could at least understand the honourable members' concerns across the way, although you can make an argument that a strong, healthy economy is the building block upon which we build the social programs that are so important to us. But we are doing other things for children, important things for children, and I think my colleague the member for Durham-York has mentioned some of them today.

The member for Windsor-Riverside's resolution has a list of objectives, and I'd like to just touch on a few of them because there are too many things to talk about today in the time that I have available.

First of all, he talks about the need, in point 4, "that every child has the right to be protected from exploitation and abuse." That is certainly the

preamble and the objective in the Child and Family Services Act; it's to serve the best interests of the child. Under this act, all serious injuries and deaths of children receiving services are to be reported to the ministry within 24 hours. We have $360 million a year that is supporting the children's aid societies, and they have the mandate to provide services to children in need of protection under this legislation. We also have a contingency fund of $30 million to help those agencies if they have a problem or a crisis in their services.

Disabled children is another area that is mentioned in point 5 of the member for Windsor-Riverside's motion, and we have a number of special programs to help disabled children and their parents.

We're protecting services for the disabled: for example, the special services at home program, which is $37 million, which helps 10,000 individuals; the handicapped children's benefits, which is a program that is helping 11,000 children across this province; and, as our government has committed to previously and we will be announcing, the special allowance and the special support that we will be putting in place for disabled people who are currently stuck on the welfare system, which is not an appropriate way to respond to their very legitimate and very, very important needs.

Another effort is the restructuring of children's services that the ministry is doing. We currently spend more than $700 million overall for children in need. One of the things I think is so important about how we are doing that is that we went out to the community, we went out to the advisory groups, and we asked: "How do we do this? What is the best way to make sure that these resources are going to front-line services to help children, where they should be?" That advice has helped us to develop a very realistic plan in children's services and also has helped us in collaboration with the other ministries that support that as well.

It's also important to note that while the federal government has the responsibility for signing treaties on behalf of the provinces, Canada is a signatory nation on the UN bill of rights for the child, and therefore Ontario is already bound by the United Nations' much more extensive bill of rights for children. In May 1995 Canada presented its report to the United Nations on the implementation of the convention in Canada. The Ontario contribution to the Canadian report was more comprehensive than any other province's. The UN issued its comment in June.

They expressed no concerns with any aspect of Ontario's compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think that's also an important point which we need to mention today.

Finally, I'd like to turn my attention to the issue of child care, which of course is something I've been very involved with over the past many months. I can understand the concerns of those in the community. I'd like to recognize that we have Kerry McCuaig from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care over there in the Speaker's gallery. I know the concern and the anxiety there is in the sector, because the prospect of any change is very difficult for people.

One of the things I've been very concerned about is the rumours and the misinformation that have gone around because of that concern and anxiety perhaps, but also because of individuals who I think should exercise perhaps a little more restraint in the rumours they repeat to people. I have had women on the phone literally in hysterics because of things they have been told.

This government was supposed to have wiped out child care in July; we didn't do it. We were supposed to have wiped out child care in November's economic statement; we didn't do it. We're supposed to be implementing some sort of taking all the fee subsidies and turning them into vouchers; we're not doing that. There were predictions that this budget was going to cut child care; it didn't happen.

As a matter of fact, we increased the child care spending in this budget up to $600 million, the highest it's been in Ontario's history, and the reason we have done that is because we believe in the importance of child care support to parents. We know how difficult it is for parents who are trying to get into the workforce to make sure there is quality care for their children; we understand and appreciate that. That is one of the reasons we are working so hard to bring forward recommendations that will help children and parents in their choices.

Some parents have the ability or financial resources to choose to stay at home and raise their children in the early years of life. There are others who would like to choose to but unfortunately are not able to. There are those where child care support is an absolute necessity. It's an important building block for those who are trying to get off social assistance. It's also a very important support for many people who perhaps are in low-income jobs, and that kind of child care support can make the difference between staying in the workforce or having to go back on assistance.

We want the system to help more parents, and that's one of the objectives we are trying to do. We're looking at parental choice, we're looking at flexibility, because one of the messages we have heard from so many people in the child care field is that the system needs to be more flexible so that it can meet the needs of parents and of children out there, parents who have shift work or part-time work.

I had the privilege this morning of being at one of the Better Beginnings projects here in Toronto. They talked about how the subsidy system as it is currently designed has not been able to help those on social assistance trying to get off because it's so rigidly structured.

Those are some of the objectives and things we are trying to do to improve the system. I would love to spend many more minutes talking about some of the things we would like to do in the child care system, but I close by saying I've been very pleased with the support and encouragement I have had from members of this cabinet, from my own minister and particularly from the Premier and the Deputy Premier, who also understand and appreciate the importance of this issue for so many parents out there in the province.

I've outlined some important principles that we see. We've touched on a couple of points that have been in the member for Windsor-Riverside's resolution. I don't know why he seems to feel that when he had the opportunity in the last several years -- I understand he was a very influential member in his government -- he could have brought forward something like this at that time. Because of the principles in this that we believe in and that we support, because we are trying very hard to meet those objectives in that resolution, I am very pleased to be able to support this motion on behalf of this government.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm very happy to stand here today and support a colleague, who also comes from Windsor, in his motion brought forward in the House today in regard to children. As the House and those at home may know, the Ontario Liberal Party from the very beginning, immediately after June 8, 1995, selected the role of children's services critic, and I was very honoured to play that role.

I feel some kind of kindred spirit with our fellow member for Windsor-Riverside, Dave Cooke, because we in our critics' role of children's services had made such a significant statement that it has led the honourable member to bring forward the bill of rights today. I thank you for carrying the torch with us on the issue of children. People at home are very grateful too that Mr Cooke finally has joined us in our battle to ensure that the war against children stops.

The best thing I heard today, towards the end of the speech of the member opposite, was that the member for Durham West would be supporting the bill. Probably the most significant item is that government members will follow the lead of the member for Durham West and support the bill brought forward today in support of children across Ontario. We thank you for that and for showing leadership on behalf of your government today.

I had the opportunity to do some significant travel with groups like the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, and we spent some time on the road. We're very happy to see Kerry McCuaig here today, again showing leadership across Ontario communities on issues like child care and what it means to the balance of Ontarians. The government was hoping it would have jobs on that agenda. The government so far is not living up to its agenda for jobs. The previous government as well had honourable intentions in the area of jobs, but all leaders understand that child care is a significant component in the area of jobs and that this government too must address the area of child care.

The member for Durham West has led some kind of investigative process -- we're not certain what that process was -- to look at the area of child care. We're glad she's here today telling us that it is a difficult topic to deal with, that critical to the discussion is funding.

In 1993 the former NDP government slashed across the board when they realized they had a spendthrift government for their first two years of office; they spent their last two clamping down. They clamped down across the board, including children's agencies. That, with me individually in Windsor, was when I started sitting up and taking notice of what the Ontario government was doing to children in Ontario, because they cut children's aid societies: They cut children's mental health agencies, since 1993, 5% one year and 5% the next year. Where was the priority for children in 1993?

I am so happy that our member for Windsor finally has seen the light and is showing some leadership in bringing forward a children's bill of rights. I am pleased on behalf of the Liberals, on behalf of my colleague the member for Sudbury, to support the bill of rights. We urge its passage today.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's a great pleasure to support my colleague from Windsor-Riverside in this motion today. It's very important for us to really look at the motion and understand what we are all committing ourselves to do: to speak on behalf of those who are too young, too immature to speak on their own behalf, whose voices seldom get heard and for whom we are the voice.

These sessions are supposed to be non-partisan. We haven't quite succeeded in that this morning, as is often true, and this truly should be a non-partisan issue. Studies over the years commissioned under different levels of government have shown us that the elements of poverty, abuse, neglect and exploitation are the very indicators of the inability of people in later life to be self-sufficient and live healthy and fulfilling lives within our community. That is exactly what this motion is intended to remind us of and to spur us to change.

The reality is that we have a society, and we have to understand that, over a long period of time, not the responsibility of any one government or even a series of governments, where children are exploited, abused and neglected in great numbers.

The federal study around child abuse showed us that one in four young women and one in seven young men are abused before they reach the age of maturity. This ought really to concern us a great deal because the protection of our children is extraordinarily important to us. It is really important for us to constantly keep in mind that the factors that help us to keep our children safe are the factors that help us all to live a safe and healthy lifestyle.

It is extraordinarily difficult for parents who are enmeshed in job loss and in poverty to protect their children, to give their children a sense of self-worth. My colleague from Sudbury talked about the issue of the effect on children's sense of self when they are not able to participate in events or appear similar to their friends and feel as though they are part of mainstream society.

Hundreds of children run away from home every year, almost universally as a result of issues around abuse, exploitation or neglect. They don't all come from poor families. Many of them come from families where the issue is not economic wellbeing but the health of the family and the ability of people to parent appropriately.

One issue that my colleague the member for Durham West raised was the child care issue. I find it very difficult when this member says they have not cut any child care spaces, when we all know that nearly 5,000 spaces that were provided under the Jobs Ontario Training programs have been lost. It's extremely important for us to acknowledge that 19 child care programs have closed since this government took place, 12 regions have frozen their subsidy intake and 12 community-based planning groups have lost their funding. That is a serious blow to child care.

We are waiting for the report from the member for Durham West, and we are waiting to see whether in the case of child care the issue of flexibility in fact means flexibility to take away services and take away standards, because that's what flexibility has meant in the labour legislation, it's what it's meant in the health legislation, it's what it's meant in municipal affairs and environmental planning.

So we hope that the commitment of this government, as said by the member for Durham West, is that flexibility will indeed improve the lot of children instead of erode the quality and the number of programs that are available to them. We will be waiting to see whether that is in fact true.

The member for Durham West also said that the United Nations last June had expressed no concern about Ontario's compliance with the rights of children as articulated by the United Nations. I wonder if they will say the same thing this June, because there has been a steady erosion of those basic supports to children that in fact got that successful report from the United Nations monitoring agency.

It is very important for us to understand that it is very, very swift when erosion of services begin to erode the supports for children, and that very often, because those children have no voice in the halls of power, their problems go unnoticed unless we bring them to the attention of the government of the day. It is extremely important for us to say yes, we have a Child and Family Services Act that makes provision for the protection of children; we do. In fact, under that act it is the responsibility, in

part III of that act, for children's aid societies in this province to protect children from exploitation and abuse.

But all children's aid societies in this province have articulated very clearly the very great difficulty they are having in performing their task, and the need for us to rethink how to support families and children in the community. Vast amounts of money now go in that system to take children out of unsafe homes instead of to work with parents and with the community to provide the supports to keep children within their families and within their communities.

The real problem is that many of those services are not core services or mandatory services, as defined in the act. They are possible services: crisis intervention, assessment, counselling, preventive services. The kind of bringing someone in to teach parenting skills and to teach homemaking skills. Those are the kinds of programs that are not mandatory in our children's aid societies but which, in fact, may be the key to helping our families and our children to be safer and more healthy places to live.

One of the things we need to recognize is that there is a domino effect whenever a program is changed. When a family with two children loses $3,000 out of their income in a year, that has an effect on the children in that family.

When the budget guide for the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto says that families need a certain amount of money in order to live, and that those families are living in Metro Toronto at $7,234 below that guide, given the cuts to social assistance, we should be alerted that down the line we are going to see problems in terms of the ability of children to be motivated at school, the ability of parents to feed their children, the ability of parents to give their children the kinds of stimulation they need in order to be fully healthy and fulfilled.

When we look at the issue of those children living at $46,654 below the average wage in Metro Toronto, we see that the gap is greater. What my friend from Sudbury said: What happens as a result of that gap is an erosion of the ability of young people to feel strong and effective within their community. What happens when you add a $2 fee for every prescription for every child in every one of these families is an inability of parents to maintain basic health for their children.

So when the government says, "We have nothing to worry about; we got a clean bill of health from the United Nations in Ontario for obeying the rights of children last June," we need to ask ourselves what we will see in the future. Every time an action by government affects the ability of families to care for their children and the ability of children to learn and to grow in a healthy, safe environment, we must ask what the overall effect of that will be on our ability to protect the rights of children.

This is an issue that really requires far more than the kind of time that we have all had this morning. It is an issue that should be joined in a very real way, not just in this Legislature but frankly in all our communities. It's a truism to say that children are our future, but it is a very real issue that unless we are protecting and nurturing, caring for our children today, they will turn into uncaring adults, they will turn into adults who are not able to be self-sufficient, adults who are not connected into their communities, adults in fact who are alienated from those who did not care for them.

This is an awful warning to us, because we know that the roots of crime, the roots of destruction in our society are alienation. One of the aspects of not fulfilling the rights of children is that we alienate our future from ourselves.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Windsor-Riverside has two minutes.

Mr Cooke: First I want to thank the members who participated in the debate. I agree with many of the comments that have been made and the directions that even the Conservative members have reinforced. I just wish, as we were standing here today, that they were more than words and that they were being translated into programs and investments. Everybody today talked about the importance of investing in the early years, but what we see in the province right now is money being taken out both in the education system for junior kindergarten and in our child care system across the province.

We can use all the kind of language we want about reforming our child care program and talk about choice and flexibility and all the rest of it, but, as my colleague from London Centre has said, "flexibility" sounds like a good word but more often than not what it means with this government is removing flexibility from working families that want access to programs. That's exactly what'll happen with child care if we move to this program about your system program or if we take hundreds of millions of the dollars that we now invest and invest it more into home day care programs and so forth rather than investing them into the formal system that we currently have.

I think it will be an important statement today if we pass this resolution and go on record supporting this resolution, and that's why I appreciate the support that has been voiced by all parties. I want to say to my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich I appreciate her non-partisan comments throughout her speech, but I'm going to try to make a cable show out of this and I can tell her that we can sufficiently edit her comments to make them sound very supportive and I do appreciate the fact that the Liberal Party, after opposing junior kindergarten when I was Minister of Education and Training, is finally on side.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

Mr Hastings moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's a privilege to stand in the House today to discuss the merits of Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act. The purpose of Bill 27 is to emphasize the importance of a child's relationship with his or her parents and grandparents. The amended act would require parents and other guardians with custody to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between children and their grandparents.

I introduced Bill 27 because many parents and grandparents from all over Ontario have been victimized, in my estimation, by the loopholes of the current Children's Law Reform Act. Over the last two days I have presented this assembly, in the form of many petitions, over 900 signatures from Ontario citizens who support Bill 27. I understand that more petitions will be forthcoming at my office next week.

I have also received numerous calls and letters of support, not just from parents and grandparents but, surprisingly, from children. I have one letter in particular that I treasure, in a sense, because it was from a 15-year-old young lady who was separated from her grandparents when she was younger, was reunited briefly, only to be separated again by a family court when her parents petitioned that situation.

I'd like to pay tribute to all the folks who have come today to support this bill.

I have reviewed another letter from a set of grandparents who have not seen their grandchildren in over six years. Both parents in separate court decisions were deemed unsuitable to care for the children because of a history of physical and mental abuse. Rather than the court placing the children in the custody of their grandparents or other relatives, the children are now in a foster home awaiting adoption. These grandparents have been fighting for custody and access ever since, but their pleas are being ignored by the courts.

These are two stories out of hundreds that currently exist in Ontario, where the best interests of the child are not being considered.

I am not the first member to introduce this type of legislation in the House. The Attorney General of the former Liberal government, Mr Ian Scott, introduced legislation that died a quick death on the order paper. The previous NDP government introduced similar legislation, but the outcome was similar in prediction when the election was called.

The fundamental principle and message of this bill is to require provincial family court judges to consider the ongoing dynamic relationships between children and grandparents in the access and potential custody of the family. This principle strengthens the wellbeing of the child-centred decision-making in provincial family courts.

The current Children's Law Reform Act is amended by adding the following subsections.

In the first, subsection 24(2), a list of matters that a court must consider when determining the best interests of a child is amended to include a specific reference to "the importance of maintaining emotional ties between children and grandparents."

The second, subsection 24(2.1), quite unequivocally requires a court that is considering custody or access to "give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child."

The third

section that I would like to comment on is the proposed subsection 24(2.2), which requires that a court, in considering custody issues, "take into consideration each applicant's willingness to facilitate as much contact between the child and each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child."

May I add, this bill is fundamentally different from the legislation that was tabled in Ottawa by the Reform member of Parliament Daphne Jennings recently. Bill 27 does not eliminate the rights of children. It protects them and even advances and enriches the principle of child wellbeing as found in this legislation.

May I add that the three subsections I have pointed out in this legislation are 24(2), (2.1) and (2.2). All clearly state the phrase "the best interests of the child."

Grandparents already have the right to make custody and access applications. Bill 27 is amended to mention them specifically, simply telling the courts that in certain individual circumstances grandparents should be specifically considered as an alternative to foster care or children's aid. At the end of the day, the actions which are in the best interests of the child must remain paramount, and that's what this bill does.

Bill 27 has the support of grandparents' groups across Ontario. Groups such as GRAND, the Heritage of Children of Canada and the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association, family lawyers such as Mr Carl Orbach and Mr Sender Herschorn in Toronto and family court assessors have endorsed Bill 27, in addition to an Etobicoke-based group called Kids Need Both Parents, and a petition that was signed by over 900 Ontario citizens calling for the passage of Bill 27.

With some of the loopholes in the existing act, children are sometimes unfortunately used as pawns in bitter custody battles between the parents. Grandparents have often never seen their grandchildren as a result of these custody battles. Because of the many ambiguous laws, I was prompted to introduce this legislation.

Let us not forget who are the real victims in this situation: It is the children. Family is family, and children deserve the right to know who their family is. Children are very good judges of character and human and family values. Such character traits are what children are best known for when they are able to grow up in a safe and secure environment.

I encourage all members in this House to support Bill 27 and help reinforce a safe and secure environment for our province's greatest investment -- our children.

Pour conclure, je crois que le principe fondamental dans ce projet de loi est la nécessité de créer de meilleures relations entre les générations et de reconnaître l'importance des liens et des racines familiales.

Applause.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd like to remind the people in the gallery that only the members are allowed to applaud. Further debate?

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am happy to stand today in support of the bill that's being brought forward by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

At the outset, I want to say that the member has every good intention to bring forward a bill, to get support of all members of the House, all opposition members and government members, to ensure the safe passage of the bill, because the intent of the bill is a very worthy one and I think all members today who are going to be here and listening are going to see that. In fact, they're going to think it's just as worthy as previous bills that have come into the House.

The grandparents who are here today clearly are wondering why we have gone through this the number of times we have. Why have we had Bill 156? Why have we had Bill 124? Why in the past have we brought the bills forward, the whole House has passed the bills, and we're back in the House again now talking about Bill 27, which is identical to Bill 124 in 1989 and also identical to Bill 156 from 1994? Why are we here again talking about Bill 27? We all agree with its content. Why are we doing this? We have to pass it. These two were passed as well.

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I'm more than happy to speak with you.

The intent of the bill is noble. It raises many of the issues that child advocates support. Our primary interest is the interests of the child. Grandparents are in the best interests of the child. The biological link is implicit in the bill. We support that. Clearly, grandparents should be acknowledged, that they can play a significant role in the healthy level of a child's development. If the courts are dealing with this matter, in many instances there's been a division within the family.

The additional role model, then, of a grandparent can and should be a soothing and stabilizing force in the life of that child. Divorce rates, family breakups, separations continue to rise, and we've never needed this kind of impetus as we do today, because those rates are going up all the time. I'll be supporting the bill because of that very reason, because it signals to the government that this is important, that the Children's Law Reform Act can be improved.

I've got to be honest. This bill, like its predecessors, bills 156 and 124, likely will not come forward as legislation, and there's a very good reason for that. The Attorney General's office has not supported the bills in the past, and we have to ask ourselves why that is. Today I wanted to bring forward amendments that the Attorney General's office could support. It may not be the content of Bill 27 as it's been presented today, but we do have to make the government an offer that it can bring forward in legislation.

I would like to go through those appropriate amendments.

First, under subsection 24(2), we find the term "best interests." In that area we find further clauses (

a) through (g). We would add, for example, (l). This would include the preparedness of the applicant to include relatives in the plans proposed for the care and bringing up of the child.

By adding a further subsection to

section 24, the definition of "relatives" would be outlined. The definition of "relatives" found in the Child and Family Services Act, subsection 136(1), is highly appropriate. This is most important, as that definition of "relative," when used in reference to a child, means as its first definition the grandparent. We believe that part of the Child and Family Services Act, that definition where it lists grandparent as "relative," should be brought into the Children's Law Reform Act. Then you would find the word "grandparents" listed, and that is what grandparents are looking for.

It does continue with great-uncle, great-aunt, uncle or aunt, whether by blood, marriage or adoption. To this we would also add siblings, because there are instances where there are older siblings in the families involved, and whether it's by virtue of death of the parents etc, those older siblings too would become important.

May I say that this improvement to the act puts the onus on the parents to outline what the continued contact with the grandparents will be. This improvement allows the grandparents inclusion in access to the grandchild without having to access the courts and being forced to pay the associated costs. There are so many instances where that has happened.

These recommended changes, as outlined here, are in keeping with legislation a government can bring forward. Bill 27, as it's presented today, is not manageable in its widest application, and it is because of this that previous bills, Bill 156 and Bill 124, have not come forward, so neither will Bill 27. We must make the government an offer that can be brought in legislation today.

The Attorney General's office is required to look at the widest application of the bill. I'd like to offer to the Attorney General -- and I know he is watching the debate with interest today -- that we feel the debate today is required. He must know that all members of the House will be supportive and that it is an important issue. Then he must look at the widest application of the bill as presented, see that like its predecessors it was not manageable, and look at what he could possibly bring forward. I feel that what we're offering as a Liberal caucus are amendments that can be brought forward.

To the Attorney General I say, please look closely at the Hansard. I'll be submitting to you my speech verbatim so you can look at amendments that are plausible for government.

I believe it is a real solution and one the grandparents indeed are looking for, that (

a) the best interests of the child are maintained, and (

b) the interests of grandparents are enshrined in the Children's Law Reform Act where grandparents are included in cases of separation of the parents without forcing grandparents to access the courts to continue to be a beneficial and stabilizing force in the life of a child.

To the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I trust it will pass today so that your government will move to bring forward legislation that will truly benefit grandchildren and certainly grandparents.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In general, I support what the member is trying to do with the bill. As was pointed out earlier, under the Peterson government and under the Rae government, private members' bills did come forward basically saying the same thing this bill says.

As was the case in those debates, most members of this assembly, if not all, will probably vote in favour of the general principle of the bill; that is, everybody believes a family consists not only of mother and father, those relationships, but also the grandparents as a very important factor in the raising of the child so the boy or girl is able to understand who the family is, where the family comes from, what the connections are in terms of all the other aunts and uncles and grandparents. I think that's very important, as all other members do, when it comes to the raising of children.

Unfortunately, Bill 27, I would just caution, as was pointed out earlier, is basically the same format brought forward at the time Ian Scott was the Attorney General. Ian Scott would not support the bill as Attorney General because he pointed out correctly then that there were some definite problems in how this legislation is written, that in some cases might actually add to the acrimony you find in custody battles when parents separate.

It was the same argument when Marion Boyd was the Attorney General under our government and a private member's bill came forward. I remember the discussions at caucus where members of our caucus generally supported what the individual member was trying to do, saw it as being a very important direction to take, but unfortunately the bill was not amended by the member to take into account the issues our Attorney General had raised, the same as the prior Attorney General, Ian Scott.

We're back where we were eight or nine years ago, right back to square one again. I suggest that the member take heed of the comments made by the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I'm not going to repeat them. I think she made the points fairly well about some of the amendments needed.

Take a look, for example, at subsection 1(2.1). It reads, "A person who has custody of a child shall not unreasonably place obstacles to personal relations between the child and the child's grandparents." That's fairly wide open. In some cases there may be very good reasons for protecting the child, that that is not to happen. The way this reads, it says it doesn't matter, that all grandparents will have access to the child no matter what.

There may be some cases out there -- I agree they're not the majority of cases, but there are some cases out there -- where one of the parents, or both, or the grandparents shouldn't have access. What you're doing here is setting in legislation rights and privileges for the grandparents that do not exist under the current law for the parents themselves, the estranged parent, be it the father or the mother.

I think this language is a bit wide to be using.

We should say what you did under subsection (2), "in the best interests of the child." With that, the judge could look at the case and say that as in 90% of cases, probably even higher than that, there's not a big problem with the grandparents, but in the cases where there may be -- I'm reluctant to get into individual cases, but as the member for Cochrane South, I can recall at least two or three occasions where the mother of a child has come into my office to complain about the way the child was being set against her by the grandparents at the request of the estranged husband. There were games being played.

The father of the children, who didn't have access for very good reasons in a case I remember -- I don't want to repeat them in this Legislature; they were horrible enough when I had to hear them -- was prodding his parents to take the child away from the mother for visitation so he could come around by the back door, as it were, to visit the child. Clearly that would not have been in the child's best interests, and when the parents and grandparents went to court to get access, the judge rightfully didn't give access to the child in that case because it wouldn't have been in the best interests.

I want to say for those people watching that the reality is that the vast majority of grandparents are caring, are nurturing, are part of the family and are very necessary for the raising of the children. In my case, in my family, the grandparents on my wife's side and my parents on my side played a very large role and still do when it comes to the raising of our children. In fact, my eldest daughter is 19 years old and probably has a stronger relationship with her grandparents than a lot of other children, and that's very important to her.

I recognize this is what the member is trying to do, to make sure that every other child out there who, for whatever reason, finds themselves in a situation where the parents have separated, has access to the grandparents.

But I say again, this is really opening up the legislation to some very difficult situations that we may end up putting children in. Again, under subsection (2), in making an order respecting custody of access to a child, at least in that particular area you've covered off the "best interest" portion and I at least see that you've tried to do that.

I just will end on this note and say I will vote in favour of the legislation, but I want the member sponsoring this bill to know, that I have some very, very grave concerns as to how the legislation is written up. I think what you need to do at the very minimum is the Attorney General must get involved. The Attorney General should be talking to the former Attorney General here.

Marion Boyd has a lot of experience in this particular issue, and Ian Scott I saw was in the assembly a couple of weeks ago, and talk to the people at the ministry to make sure that this bill, if it does go forward and it is passed, in the end will be for the best interests of the child and not just the way that it's written now.

I would guess that if the bill stays the way it is, it will never see third reading. There is no way that the Attorney General will allow this to get to third reading the way it is written now. On that, I thank you very much for the time to debate.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Obviously, as the various members have pointed out, the numbers of times that this issue has been raised in the House over the years, it's been a very controversial bill. I quite frankly will be speaking against the bill.

The rule that currently exists in the province of Ontario is, what is in the best interests of the child, not what is in the best interests of the grandparents or anyone else. As the member for Windsor-Sandwich suggested, perhaps it should be opened up to other areas. It should be opened up to aunts and uncles and other members of the family who may have similar rights.

I can tell you that anyone who has been personally involved in a matrimonial battle or any solicitor who has advised and participated in family law proceedings, the battles over children and the tugs of war involving children are just dreadful, and that's just involving a man and a woman. I can tell you that with grandparents, we have two more sets of people who would be part of that tug of war, possibly in different directions. The battles will become unbelievable.

If all of you grey-haired people, of whom I am one, think back to when you were younger and realize the influence that grandparents could have in such applications, when the sole jurisdiction should be yours, you might have second thoughts. I suggest that you go back to those days, particularly the grey-haired people who are thinking of this situation.

I understand some of the examples that have been given by my friend from Etobicoke-Rexdale, although I will tell you that under the present law, the Children's Law Reform Act, any person, absolutely any person can apply for custody or access. "Any person" has been defined by the courts to include grandparents, so there are no legal obstacles to applications by grandparents. Once grandparents apply for custody or access, they are entitled to all the same considerations that a parent is entitled to. That's the law now.

For example, the court would be required to consider the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and the grandparent and would be required to consider the child's views and preferences. All of those things exist in the law now, so this isn't something new that is required.

The federal Divorce Act and the legislation in other provinces do impose some barriers on applications by grandparents and other parties, but Ontario's law clearly does not impose now any obstacles with respect to grandparents' access. No matter who the applicant, the merits of the application are to be determined solely according to the best interests of the child -- and I emphasize, the best interests of the child.

That is what we all should be thinking of when we're voting on this particular legislation: not the rights of grandparents, not the rights of parents, not the rights of aunts and uncles or cousins, but the best interests of the child. If there has been a relationship that has developed over the years with grandparents, the court will take that into consideration. I can assure you that is done now. I strongly believe in the system that we have now, and if a judge makes an error, there's a right of appeal if a judge has erred in not considering certain facts or the law.

There was a federal private member's bill to include grandparents' rights in the Divorce Act, and this was defeated, as I understand, in 1995. The Canadian Bar Association, the national family law section, expressed concerns about increasing grandparents' rights. Singling out grandparents for special mention is not supported by any convincing social science evidence that access to grandparents is more important to the child than access to other persons who have a significant relationship with the child, whether they be aunts and uncles, whether they be godparents, whether they be simply friends. That evidence has not been produced.

The proposed bill, I would submit, goes far beyond the current law by imposing a duty on parents of an intact family to facilitate access for grandparents. I would submit that this is a marked departure from Canadian common law principles with respect to the autonomy of families to determine the best interests of the children and would likely promote greater conflict between parents and grandparents.

There is judicial evidence that grandparents have attempted to use access as a means of interfering in their own child's marriage that the grandparents disapproved of in the first place, and hence I get back to my opening comments of those terrible, terrible tugs of war where innocent children are used as a means to getting at the other parent, and indeed if the grandparents get into the picture I shudder, as some members have referred to me privately, at the quagmire that could be created in the future.

Access enforcement is one of the most integral problems in family law, and extending grandparents access rights will not help them enforce such orders.

Perhaps a few comments with respect to some of the sections. Subsection 20(2.1) would direct parents not to place unreasonable obstacles to relationships between the child and the child's grandparents. That's one of the sections that is in the bill. This would apply to intact families where there is no problem and therefore would be a marked departure from Canadian law which respects the autonomy of the family, of the parents, to determine the best interests of children while they're in their custody.

So if you believe in the family, you believe in the parents having jurisdiction over their own children, then I quite frankly don't think you should be supporting this bill. There is no precedent for such a provision. There would be much litigation to determine what was a reasonable obstacle.

Since the Children's Law Reform Act applies equally to children born in and outside marriage, this provision would apply to require a single parent to provide access to the parents of the other biological parent, even though the other parent had never lived with the child. That's a problem that I think we need to consider before we support this legislation.

I have other comments to make, but I know there are other members of my caucus who would like to speak on this legislation. I thank you very much for letting me participate in this debate.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support of this bill. This bill is a significant bill. It is extremely important in nature. When I was doing a little research on this, what was most upsetting was that this bill has been presented twice before -- 156 and 124 -- and both times it went nowhere. It may have not gone anywhere because of what the member for Dufferin-Peel says: because of the legal aspects of it. Certainly that has to be considered when passing new legislation. But, you know, it's the identical bill brought back for a third time.

You would have thought that after the first time we would have learned we have to make recommendations or alterations to the bill. Certainly grandparents and parents and children would understand that after the second time we would have learned that we have to make some alterations to the bill so that we can approve this.

Here it is a third time. Let us hope that on this third occasion this bill will pass in the assembly this morning and then it will go to committee of the whole. Then it will be the job of the government to bring this bill back, taking into consideration the very, very important legal aspects that the member for Dufferin-Peel has suggested, but also making sure that the intent of the motion by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is enshrined in law.

I want to just digress a little bit and go back to my years in the classroom to give you a few experiences in a very general way why this legislation is so important. I was speaking to a group of students from Killarney this morning from St Joseph school who were in the gallery earlier on, and at the time a grandparent came up looking for the delegation. I believe his name was Mr Hill from Scarborough. The principal of the school and I talked a little bit as he went down to find the delegation.

The secure feeling he had and the excitement he had about being here today to listen to the debate -- let me tell you, after 30 years in the classroom and after planning 30 Christmas concerts and after planning 30 variety shows and after planning countless events where parents and grandparents are involved, there is nothing -- nothing -- that can be more pleasing to the eye and more gratifying to the heart than to see the beauty and the excitement of the interaction between a grandparent and a grandchild.

If you look at celebrating, for example, May 30 as Croatian Independence Day, you see dida and baba in the audience at the school concert, and that sense of security for that child is beautiful, and that sense of gratification for that grandparent is beautiful. If you're looking at the Christmas concerts and you see the mémères and pépères and the nonnos and the nonnas coming to the concerts and you see that very, very strong bond, within that bond is the feeling of security and love.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, some children, many children, too many children, need that extra support, need that extra encouragement of being able to see grandpa and grandma at the Christmas concert, in the classroom talking to their teachers. It provides that parent's child and that grandparent's grandchild with the opportunity to feel good about themselves. That's the intent of this legislation by and large.

I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale wants to ensure that grandparents can take an active role in ensuring that the development of the child is total, that the development of the child is very, very positive. There's nothing wrong -- and let me differ a little bit with the member for Dufferin-Peel in that respect -- with grandparents having rights and there's nothing wrong with non-custodial parents having rights and there's nothing wrong with aunts and uncles having rights.

If it's in the best interests of the child, then how and why should we get bogged down in the bureaucracy of government that doesn't allow this to happen? Surely this House and surely our lawmakers are able to come together. This shouldn't have to come back a fourth time. Surely we can present amendments to this legislation to ensure the Attorney General can accept the wording of the bill.

Isn't it sad for us to have to be worried about debating language, about debating the way words are interpreted, when their very actions, if implemented, would determine that children feel better about themselves, that children feel more secure, that children in fact feel proud of themselves because we have dido and baba, nonno and nonna, mémère and pépère in the audience, grandma and grandpa watching me, being proud that I am important not only to my fellow classmates and not only to my teacher, who tries all the time to make children feel important, but also to my grandparent whom I love and whom I worship and whom I look up to.

That person can take a very, very active role, be it in a very minor way to us, by their attendance at a Christmas concert, but let me tell you, to the child it is major; it is a significant moment of time. It is a significant opportunity for that child to say, "I am loved."

I think, simply put, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale wants to ensure that this happens and that it happens on a continuing basis and that it happens so that the rights of grandparents are there, so that the rights of non-custodial parents are there, but more importantly, and I will use the words again from the member for Dufferin-Peel because they are important, that the best interests of the child are always the determining factor. There are going to be occasions when that isn't going to be able to happen because the best interests of children will not be served.

However, they are so few and far between that we shouldn't be concerned about semantics so that we can't pass legislation a third time because we can't get the wording straight. What's wrong with the wording, "I love my grandchild"?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to have a chance to speak very briefly to this bill and indicate the reasons why I'm going to be supporting this particular bill.

I know there are concerns and I know that some of my colleagues in my caucus have expressed some and will express some more. I have to say that I share some of the concerns that I think we've heard from all around so far in the debate, and I have to confess to not having been able to be here for most of the earlier part of the debate, but I know some of those concerns because this is not the first time this particular issue and a bill very similar to this, if not identical, has been before this place.

We certainly saw the former member for Oakwood, Mr Rizzo, introduce a bill very similar to this, I believe, in the last Parliament. It did pass, as I recall, second reading. It didn't proceed from there. I hope that if this bill does pass, and I want to indicate, as I said, my support for it, that it will get a chance to go to committee where some of the issues and concerns that people have can be addressed.

I know there are those who believe this approach puts in a particular way the emphasis on grandparents' rights as opposed to the rights of children. All of us, I hope, would be concerned primarily with what is in the best interests of children in determining questions of custody, in determining questions of access.

That remains, as I read this bill, the primary focus and should remain the primary focus, while at the same time acknowledging, as this bill tries to do, that grandparents have an important role to play in a continuing relationship with children, regardless of family breakdown and marriage breakdown between the parents. That relationship should continue to be nourished and upheld where it is in the best interests of the child, that continuing to be the main criterion. Because that's an issue worth pursuing, I want to support this bill at second reading stage.

I hope that if it passes it goes to committee, where we can iron out some concerns and problems people have with the way this is being approached.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak on the proposed legislation by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. The issue before us today is a very important one. Some may say that in emphasizing the importance of a child's relationship with his grandparents, as this legislation does, we are trying to interfere with the direct relationship between parents and children. Some may even say we are trying to give grandparents power or control over children that only parents may rightly have.

The role of grandparents has been predominant throughout most of history and is still in many parts of the world. Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, extended families performed functions that today have been taken over by other institutions such as schools, businesses and churches.

No one can deny that with the decline of the predominance of families in the lives of our children came a decay in our social fabric and an increase in crime and other social problems. Children need a sense of belonging, and that sense of belonging comes from contact with their grandparents and other extended family members.

From the perspective of grandparents, this bill speaks to the fundamental right to a relationship with their grandchildren. They do, after all, have a biological tie to them. There is no reason why grandparents should not be able to maintain a steady relationship with their grandchildren, especially in the case of divorce or separation of parents.

Clearly defined rules should be able to keep a check on the balance of the grandparents' relationship with their grandchildren. For example, in Quebec the law will deny grandparents access to grandchildren only when a sound reason for such denial is brought forward and proved in court. This bill proposed by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale also restricts contact when it is not in the best interests of the child. Looking at the bill, you will see that contact is only to be allowed when it is consistent with the best interests of the child.

As someone who practised in that field, as a lawyer who practised under the previous children's welfare act who was involved with the office of the official guardian when the child representation program was introduced over a decade ago who has been on that panel representing children for at least 10 years, I tell you there are problems with the present legislation. Some people will argue that the present law is fine and should not be amended. Unfortunately, under the existing act family relationships in many instances become irrevocably severed, to the eventual detriment of the family fabric, and that is not in the best interests of the child.

In the unfortunate circumstance of separation and family breakup, there is little doubt that it is in the children's best interests to attempt to minimize the disruption in their lives. The unfortunate circumstance of separation and family breakup need not necessarily lead to a permanent disconnection of all family members involved: brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and grandparents.

I respectfully submit to all members of this House that unless a particular family member is the cause of the family breakup, I can't think of too many situations in a family breakup where I would like to see contact severed between a child and any of his or her extended family members. I think that in a family breakup children need more, not less contact with extended family members.

In my book, grandparents are at the top of the class of extended family members. That's why I support this bill, encourage all members to vote for it and allow it to go for further scrutiny to an appropriate committee such as the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): One thing about this bill, as it comes forward to this House in the same form time after time, is that I don't think there's any disagreement here among us, that we have concerns around the issues of grandparents who are separated from children they love. I don't think any of us have any concerns about expressing very strongly our own belief that our children thrive and prosper better when they have a good sense of their roots and a fine relationship with their grandparents.

Those of us who live in extended families make great efforts to ensure that those connections are maintained. When we hear language such as that used by my friend from Sudbury or the last speaker, it plucks at our heartstrings. We all know how we would feel if we have or have had a good relationship with our grandparents and how it would not be in our best interests to be separated from those grandparents.

I suspect there are those in this room, and certainly many hundreds of thousands in Ontario, where that is not the case, where the dispute that arises is because the relationship is not like that. It is only where there is a dispute that we're talking about needing legal means to ensure rights.

The member from Sudbury asked why this bill keeps coming forward time after time, and the answer from anyone who has worked in the Ministry of the Attorney General or has been the minister has to say because it is unworkable, because it widens things so far that the extraordinary conflict that would arise from these competing rights that would then be set in place is enormous and would never be in the best interests of families and children, particularly subsection 1(2.1) which, as my friend from Dufferin-Peel pointed out, very clearly creates a huge quagmire into which we would simply disappear.

Our legal aid resources, our court resources, our child guardian resources, all those resources could quickly become eaten up in these disputes.

If the last speaker's suggestion around there being a way people could prove in the opposite way in court that there's some impediment to that, it might work, but time after time we get this configuration of the bill, and it will be turned back again and again because it is unworkable in this form.

I join my colleagues in the Liberal Party in saying that if we really agree with this, we should work on seeing what might be possible in terms of dispute resolution, in terms of ways we can encourage, through supervised access programs and that kind of means, ways in which these disputes can resolve themselves in other ways. I would not agree with my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich that it would ever be appropriate to give this a means that would happen outside the court, because it is the court that has to determine what is in the best interests of children.

It is terribly tragic when, as part of a dispute between two adult individuals who have produced children, they separate the parents from their children. People here with us today have expressed that tragedy again and again. I don't think any of us are anything but sympathetic to that issue.

The problem we have is that if we inject the rights of grandparents into this picture, we have resulting complications that simply make the problem between parents and children and those parents' parents far more difficult and far more time-consuming. It is extraordinarily difficult for us. With this particular configuration of a bill, we recognize how this would draw out the currently far too lengthy custody and access cases which, I would remind people, happen only in a minority of cases. In most cases, about 85% of cases, custody and access issues can be resolved relatively amicably.

But 15% of cases take up enormous amounts of our resources in terms of our courts, legal aid and enormous personal resources for families. You get into not just a two-way dispute but possibly a six-way dispute if you start multiplying the numbers, and then with this "or any other person" in this bill the complications are enormous.

I would urge the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to accept the fact that most of us here really appreciate what he is trying to do and what his concerns are and encourage him to work with his government to come up with some way in which there can be a greater recognition for grandparents' rights within the construct of the best interests of the child, rather than merely bringing forward a bill that for very good reason has been turned away now by three different governments. That is the point here.

If it were workable, if it were possible with this bill, because we all have such feeling for the needs of those who are embroiled in this kind of dispute, it would have passed before now. It simply isn't practical, and bringing the same bill forward again and again is not the answer to the problem.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise on this bill and I want to commend my colleague from Etobicoke-Rexdale for bringing this forward.

I want to correct the record, however. Previous members have spoken about the fact that this bill has been introduced twice before. Thanks to my executive assistant. The previous Bill 201 was introduced in February 1987 by the Conservative justice critic. It spoke precisely to this issue and shows that this House has been very concerned about this issue for some time. Being new to this Legislature, I can tell you that I'm somewhat frustrated that an issue that is of such importance to so many people continues to go around in circles, as the member for Sudbury had indicated.

Surely this should not be an issue that would divide us. Surely this shouldn't be an issue that those of us in this place couldn't figure out some practical way to ensure that access and a relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren can be accommodated. That's why we're here. It's a challenge we should step up to. Whether it's this identical bill that we can make work, or whether it's a bill that is brought in by the Attorney General, something should be done to ensure that the family in this province can be strengthened, that children and grandchildren can have the kind of relationship that they deserve, that grandparents want to have with their grandchildren.

Surely family is the foundation of our society and the degree of the quality of relationship between the individual members of that family will determine the strength ultimately of our society. At a time when families are breaking up, I believe it's imperative that this Legislature take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that those family ties are strengthened and maintained.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Hastings: I'd like to thank all the members of the House for their general support of the principle of this bill and to extend to them my courtesy and appreciation for their remarks.

The one thing I want to reiterate in the limited time I have is that whatever shape or form this particular bill comes back in, in terms of the principle of protecting and enhancing the importance of children in their relationships to their families, there is one clear, obvious need out there, and that is that the provincial family court system -- much as the players in it keep insisting that everything is fine and that grandparents or anybody else have access or perhaps even custody awarded, if you look at the statistics, I would suspect and know, from talking with various folks who have been involved in this particular matter, that judges usually award, 99.9999%, the custody and access of children to their parents, and it goes no further.

What is important about this particular bill is the principle that it would have provincial family court judges look at the principle of the relationship. It nowhere, in any shape or form, points out the right of grandparents in terms of having a specific legal legitimate status before the courts. What it does say is to have family court justices look at this relationship. Instead of ending up where they can award access or custody to other players in the field, they end up having them go to children's aid or to foster homes. That, to me, is not a very suitable policy alternative. That's why I have suggested this one.

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 33, standing in the name of Mr Cooke. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Cooke has moved private member's resolution number 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll now deal with ballot item number 34, standing in the name of Mr Hastings. If any members are opposed to voting on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Hastings has moved second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Will it be referred to the committee of the whole House? It will be referred to committee of the whole.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Cooke has moved private member's notice of motion number 20. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Fox, Gary

O'Toole, John

Baird, John R.

Froese, Tom

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Galt, Doug

Pettit, Trevor

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pupatello, Sandra

Bisson, Gilles

Guzzo, Garry J.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Ruprecht, Tony

Brown, Michael A.

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Castrilli, Annamarie

Jordan, Leo

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Kennedy, Gerard

Smith, Bruce

Cooke, David S.

Klees, Frank

Stockwell, Chris

Cordiano, Joseph

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Turnbull, David

DeFaria, Carl

Lankin, Frances

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Doyle, Ed

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Ecker, Janet

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Bob

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Cooke's resolution will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Sheehan, Frank

Hudak, Tim

Maves, Bart

Tilson, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 6.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to use this opportunity to make a final plea to the Attorney General to keep open the regional family support plan offices across the province, including the one in Thunder Bay.

I am willing to accept that the minister is sincere in his desire to have a more efficient system put in place that will return more money to the children, who need and deserve it, but he needs to recognize that his recent statements in the House about beefing up the number of enforcement officers and having more staff who can directly deal with clients can only be accomplished by using the regional support staff and giving them the resources to do the job.

The minister acknowledges that the 1-800 line presently in place does not work. People simply cannot get through. Putting a few more people on the line will not make the necessary difference. However, if these tools were given to the regional offices, compliance would dramatically increase. The minister's decision to criticize the operation of the regional offices as a way of justifying a centralization of the system is unfair, inaccurate and an unwarranted attack on remarkably dedicated people.

The facts are clear. Though there has been no increase in staff over the past four years, net receipts have risen from $166 million in 1991-92 to $420 million in 1995-96, an increase of over 250%.

The system can improve, Minister, if you recognize that it is the regional offices and their staff that are the key to increasing compliance. By moving to a centralized 1-800 number you are simply dooming the system to failure.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): As we sit here today there are 30 workers sitting in at the Ontario Ministry of Labour in protest over this government's labour agenda, in particular its health and safety agenda.

Workers and their unions in this province have watched this government dismantle health and safety laws, dismantle health and safety agencies and attack the labour movement under Bill 7. Now we see them attacking under Bill 49, where they misled the leadership of the labour movement, telling them there was nothing to worry about in Bill 49.

We see protests happening in London, Hamilton and Kitchener. They will continue in Peterborough, Toronto and throughout the entire mandate of this government, because contrary to what this government may think, workers and their unions and those who fight for rights of injured workers are not going to stand back and allow this government to continue to dismantle everything that means something to workers in terms of their rights, in particular, health and safety as it affects the workplace.

When we saw Bill 49 come forward with a devastating attack on the basic standards of employment known as the workers' bill of rights, we knew clearly that Bill 7 and Bill 26 were not abberations. That's the way this government operates. The only thing the labour movement has left to do is to fight back, and fight back they will.

That's why those workers are occupying that office today in the Ministry of Labour. That's why hundreds of auto workers marched in support of what they're doing from the CAW political action convention down at the Sheraton Centre. I assure this government that you will see more and more demonstrations of fighting back because the labour movement is not going to stand back and allow you to dismantle all the rights that workers have gained over the decades.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): On this 52nd anniversary of D-Day, I would like to recognize and honour the sacrifices made in the fight for our freedom.

June 6 marks one of the most momentous 24 hours of the 20th century. Canadian ships and landing craft manned by about 10,000 members of the Royal Canadian Navy carried or escorted the 14,000 assault troops who landed on Juno Beach. The aircraft, numbering 10,000, formed a stream more than 100 miles long. Canada played a very critical role. Our fighting brigades in Normandy had an incredible casualty toll of 18,000 killed.

Veterans embody certain values that are rarely seen today. Duty, responsibility, respect and pride were qualities exhibited selflessly and with honour. They were prepared to give their lives for the common good so that others would be free -- free from darkness and oppression.

I feel it is important, as we reflect on this significant day in our history, to not forget the pain and suffering of the mothers, wives, children and girlfriends of the men who died. I ask all Ontarians and Canadians today to remember these sacrifices, to remember the inhumanity of the conflict, to remember the courage of both civilians and soldiers, to remember the brightness of their souls and to remember that from the darkness in which they were immersed came our light.

AIDS TREATMENT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Here is another example of the Minister of Health Americanizing Ontario health care by trying to micromanage Ontario's health care. He's putting costs ahead of appropriate care. The Ministry of Health is starting to look like just another US insurance company.

I'm referring to the Ministry of Health refusing to allow the doctors, the experts who treat people with HIV and AIDS, to prescribe the drugs they feel are necessary for their patients to survive. The Ministry of Health, not patients and their physicians, is taking over the role of medication prescribing.

The treatment of HIV and AIDS is a very difficult job and the Ministry of Health, instead of helping doctors, is making it more difficult. Medical technology is changing rapidly and new drugs and treatments for HIV and AIDS are being discovered, thank goodness. By freezing the list and requiring

section 8 applications for everything under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, you are making it extremely difficult for patients to receive the drugs they need in a timely manner to be treated for this deadly disease.

I would say to the Minister of Health, please listen to the experts. Listen to the people who provide the care. Don't let your ministry for economic reasons decide who should get what treatment and when. People living with HIV and AIDS have difficult enough lives. Don't make it more difficult for them, Minister. Change your policy and help these people.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): For many years, the people of northern Ontario have understood the important role government can play when it comes to economic development, not only in northern Ontario but across the province of Ontario.

We have seen in northern Ontario under the previous NDP government record levels of investment in regard to the softwood industry, with the construction of brand-new mills in places like Timmins and all over northern Ontario, amounting to seven or eight brand-new mills being built in the northeastern and northwestern parts of the province over a period of about a year and a half to two years, dating back to 1993.

All this was possible because the government of the day understood that government can play a positive role when it comes to economic development. Government itself is not the one that brings the capital, but government can be the catalyst in making sure that capital comes to places like Timmins and goes to places like Kapuskasing or Sault Ste Marie.

I'm sorry to say that a lot of that activity we've seen under the NDP government that got started under the hardwood initiative and others is now basically going for naught. Once those projects are built and the construction is done, we're not seeing any new projects being announced anywhere in northern Ontario when it comes to the private sector investing hard-earned, needed dollars into northern Ontario in developing our economy.

I say to this government that you have a responsibility. You have a responsibility as a government that speaks for all Ontarians, including northerners, to play your role and take your responsibility in making sure you work with us, the people of northern Ontario, to develop our economy, and we want you at the table. To say you'll leave it strictly to market forces and government to withdraw from this is totally wrong and ludicrous.

DARTS TOURNAMENT

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's with great pleasure that I rise to address the House today. Typically, Oshawa is known as the Motor City or the City that Motivates Canada. But in today's reference, the motor city is known for something else to the thousands of registrants who will converge on Oshawa for the Oshawa and District Dart League's 17th Annual Motor City Open Darts Tournament.

From Friday to Sunday this weekend, Oshawa hosts Canada's largest dart tournament at the Donavan Sports Complex and we welcome players from all over Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, many of the US states and as far away as England.

This tournament is not only a boost to the economy of the city of Oshawa, but it puts Oshawa in the forefront as being a host city that goes above and beyond the call to make guests welcome. I invite all members and all Ontarians to attend Canada's largest annual dart tournament this weekend in the City that Motivates Canada -- Oshawa.

NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Democracy was not well served, the public interest was not well served, and healthy business competition was not well served this past week with the announcement that Conrad Black would be obtaining control of 58 of 104 daily newspapers in Canada, many of them in Ontario.

Perhaps John Miller of the school of journalism at Ryerson University described the events best when he said:

"The month of May has turned the Canadian newspaper industry upside down: Owners have dealt hundred-year-old papers like playing cards. Publishers and editors have been fired. And cost-cutting is threatening the existence of one of our most important national news institutions, the Canadian press.

"When the dust cleared, one man, Conrad Black, controlled more daily papers than any person in this country's history. And it happened almost before we knew it, because newspaper ownership in Canada has become so concentrated -- some would say saturated -- that all of the 34 properties he bought changed hands privately in boardrooms without the bother of competitive bidding and with no possibility the new owners will be people who actually live in the communities being served."

Employees of the newspapers that have been affected by Hollinger have received their pink slips, the firing notices have been issued, and good newspaper employees are now out on the street. Ultimately, the reading public will be the losers as increased profit becomes the main focus of the operation of the majority of this nation's newspapers.

ANNIVERSARY OF CHIN RADIO-TV

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to rise today to pay tribute to radio station CHIN as it celebrates 30 years of broadcasting. It was indeed 30 years ago today, on June 6, 1966, that CHIN Radio first began broadcasting to the diverse cultural communities of southern Ontario.

Today, that broadcast capacity has grown to include programs in over 30 different languages. Of course, one cannot speak about radio station CHIN without speaking and focusing on its founder and current president, Johnny Lombardi. It was Johnny Lombardi who began radio station CHIN and it is he who at 80 years young continues to be the driving force behind this radio station, which has since expanded its activities to also include programming in television.

Mr Lombardi's contribution has been recognized in a number of ways, including having received the Order of Canada, the Order of Ontario, the Order of the Official Knight of the Republic of Italy, as well as the Order of Merit by the National Congress of Italian Canadians, Toronto district.

But above all of those and many other awards that Johnny has been awarded is the recognition that in fact what he has stood for and what he represents through radio station CHIN is the expression of many ethnocultural communities that have grown over the years to contribute to the life of this province and through radio station CHIN he has provided an avenue for that expression to be heard throughout the province.

FORT ERIE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I am pleased to rise in the House today as the member for Niagara South to welcome the Fort Erie Progressive Conservative Association of Women to Queen's Park. Regardless of party affiliation, the members in this House are indebted to the hardworking volunteers who support us, not just during election campaigns, but throughout our mandate in our efforts to represent our constituents.

I believe I am particularly fortunate to have the Fort Erie PC women's association actively supporting my endeavours in Niagara South.

The association was founded in 1939 and is currently the oldest continuing women's PC association in the province of Ontario. A few of the current members are charter members of the association, proudly dedicating a lifetime to their good causes. These women represent trailblazers in women's political activism in Niagara and consequently have attracted many other strong women to their association, continuing the tradition of activism, political discourse and tireless community work.

It was about a year ago today that they were pounding the pavement, hammering in signs, working the phones and computers and devising strategy, dedicating countless hours to advance the principles held firmly in their hearts and minds.

Nearly a year to the day, it brings me great pleasure to welcome the Progressive Conservative Association of Women to Queen's Park, the shining city at the end of a long road.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I am rising today to provide members of the Legislature with information about the allegations that have been raised about the treatment of young offenders at the Bluewater Youth Centre in the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

On the afternoon of February 29, 1996, there was an incident at the Bluewater Youth Centre, and 52 youths were transferred at 10 pm to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and the Niagara Regional Centre.

At the request of my ministry, the office of child and family service advocacy launched an investigation on March 1. The child advocate interviewed all 52 youths involved in the February 29th incident and submitted her report to the ministry on March 9, 1996.

On March 1, a team of four police from the Ontario Provincial Police, west region, also interviewed the youths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. Nineteen youths have subsequently been charged.

That same day, an internal ministry investigation was also launched. This investigation has not been completed, although I have been informed that a report will be completed by the end of June.

On May 31, 1996, the office of the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services received a second and separate report from the child advocate that covered the management of the young offenders following their transfer and admission to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

After reviewing the report, the correctional services division contacted the London Regional Police Service on May 31. That service has now launched its investigation and Chief Fantino has assigned a team of investigators to this matter.

As well, in order to reassure the families of young offenders, I have asked that the eight young offenders currently in the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre be transferred to the Sprucedale facility until this matter is resolved.

Upon the conclusion and receipt of the report of the internal investigation and the conclusion of the London police investigation, I will consider taking further action to deal with any unresolved issues.

Correctional employees are held to a high standard in their behaviour towards offenders in custody. There can be no excuse or tolerance for the use of force beyond that which is necessary to refrain offenders from injuring themselves.

I am, as I am sure members of the Legislature are, concerned about the matters raised by the child advocate, and we have taken a number of steps to ensure the safety of the young offenders who are in custody under the Ministry of Correctional Services.

ECONOMIC STIMULATION

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Later today I will be introducing a bill entitled the Tax Credits and Economic Stimulation Act, 1996. This bill implements further key measures of the 1996 budget to restore confidence, create jobs and spur economic growth in Ontario.

Our college and university students are among the greatest strengths of our future economy. We must ensure that they have enhanced employment opportunities to lead productive and independent lives. This bill implements the cooperative education tax credit which I announced in the budget. This refundable tax credit will provide employers with a tax saving equal to 10% of the cost of hiring a student who is participating in a recognized co-op program at an Ontario college or university, up to a maximum of $1,000 per student.

This legislation will also assist Ontario's film and television industry. This province has become one of the major film production centres in North America, creating skilled jobs for many Ontarians. To ensure that we remain a competitive player in this important industry, this bill implements our budget commitment to provide a film and television tax credit that harmonizes with the federal tax credit introduced last year and targets the benefits to Ontarians.

A large share of Ontario's new jobs have come from new and growing businesses. These businesses need sources of capital from investors who believe in their potential and who are prepared to maintain investments until the potential is fully realized. This bill will implement our commitment to ensure that capital raised by labour-sponsored investment funds is made available to Ontario entrepreneurs and especially to emerging small businesses that are not yet big enough to raise capital in more traditional ways.

There is a new confidence in the province of Ontario. All four credit rating agencies have confirmed Ontario's long-term debt ratings. Yesterday, Dominion Bond Rating Service upgraded Ontario's short-term rating. This is the first time in eight years that Ontario's rating has been upgraded.

Ontario's resale housing market in May reflected the best May sales since 1986. In the first five months, home resales were up 55% compared to the same period last year.

One year ago, the people of Ontario indicated they wanted a new direction for the province of Ontario. The measures in this bill are part of turning the corner to a better future and prosperity for all Ontarians.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I stand in my place today speaking on behalf of the Liberal caucus and I'm sure I express for all members in th