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

May 29, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

QUARRYING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Ramsay: It has come to my attention, through the assistance of the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, that the amended Mining Act, to be proclaimed into law next week, on 3 June, may have the unintended effect of permitting the quarrying of gravel and sand in Ontario's provincial parks.

Specifically, the Mining Act, as amended, redefines minerals to exclude sand, peat and gravel, and when combined with the Provincial Parks Act, which prohibits the development of mineral interests, the effect may be to open the door for quarrying of sand and gravel in Ontario's provincial park land.

Mining and quarrying were eliminated from provincial parks in 1988 by Liberal government policy and, while I am sure this loophole is merely an oversight and that the ministers involved would never have intended for such quarrying to occur, many provincial parks in Ontario contain within their boundaries large sand, peat and gravel deposits.

This is an urgent matter. There is right now an active proposal to open a gravel pit in Sleeping Giant Provincial Park near Thunder Bay, and if nothing is done to change the Mining Act then it will become legal to exploit this park and others for their gravel and sand resources.

I am sure the people of Ontario and the Minister of Natural Resources do not wish their parks to be exploited as gravel pits and their beaches exploited for sand extraction. Because of the immediacy of this issue, I will be presenting before the House later on today a private member's bill which will reinsert the words "sand, peat and gravel" into the definition of "minerals" in the Mining Act. The effect of this bill will be to ensure that the quarrying of these resources is not permitted in Ontario's provincial parks. I hope all members will support me in that endeavour.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I was encouraged to see the Minister of Skills Development finally make a skills training announcement yesterday: $2 million for counselling laid-off workers and $1.5 million for retraining 250 workers at Stelco. But, as the budget clearly stated, to move towards an economy in which workers and businesses are skilled and flexible in effecting change will require new approaches to training. We need a comprehensive job training strategy, but there was nothing in the budget and we have heard nothing from the minister.

The province of Quebec, on the other hand, introduced a proactive training measure in its budget. Quebec will provide financial assistance designed to maintain 90% of workers' disposable income while they seek training to upgrade their skills. When fully implemented, it is anticipated that $100 million will be allocated to this program. Last year, Quebec also introduced a refundable tax credit aimed at businesses that invest in training their work force.

These measures are significant because Canadian firms spend half as much as American firms on training. As Harvey Lazar, deputy chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, recently stated, if the private sector invests more heavily in training, then the need for public programs will be attenuated.

A skilled and adaptable work force is an essential component to ensure that Ontario remains competitive. Instead of more statements about the need to train our workers, it is time this government unveiled a comprehensive human resource strategy.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr White: I would like to talk a little bit about a group in our area, in the city of Oshawa, that deals with a number of problems, physical abuse of children, emotional abuse of children and principally childhood sexual abuse, which is a tremendous problem throughout the province and throughout this country.

In 1983, after the death of Sharin' Morningstar Keenan, Outreach Abuse Prevention started to develop programs and develop books for children that were preventive in nature. Their programs for both children and women have been very well received not only throughout Ontario but, I understand, throughout the entire country.

This is a group which is instrumental in helping to prevent childhood sexual abuse; prevent, because it is too late 20 years after to deal with suicides, depression, permanent psychotic ailments; prevent, because by prevention one can create a community and a human being whose self-esteem is enhanced and whose capacity for dealing with this world is richer and fuller.

I want to commend that group and particularly those people who for so many years have worked in a volunteer capacity and dedicated so much of their time.

SEVERANCE PAYMENT AND TERMINATION HEARINGS

Mr Cleary: The members will recall that I addressed a very serious labour issue in the Legislature on 6 May. After scheduling the termination and severance payment hearings for over 200 former employees of BCL in Cornwall, the Ministry of Labour arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to relocate these hearings to Ottawa.

Although the minister's letter to the former employees noting the change in venue was dated 25 April, these workers did not receive the registered letter until 14 May, almost three weeks later. At this time, I refuted the Minister of Labour's ridiculous claim that the move was necessary because Cornwall could not adequately accommodate the hearings.

Just yesterday, however, I received further notice from the minister which stated a new reason: "The referee is from Ottawa, and ministry personnel have advised that he is more likely to agree to extend the hearing into evening sessions if the hearing takes place in Ottawa."

Essentially, then, the minister is stating that the referee is more likely to do his job responsibly if he can eat at home. I might remind the minister that the former employees of BCL do not have that luxury which the minister implies. Perhaps the referee and the minister would be more sympathetic if they were forced to wait two years for a severance package and then were asked to absorb the cost and burden of travelling to Ottawa for four consecutive days.

Furthermore, the minister states "that rescheduling this matter would result in a further delay of approximately 10 months." This entire hearing was already scheduled in Cornwall before the ministry arbitrarily decided to move the hearing. It is the opinion of the former employees, as well as myself, that this is an obvious attempt to alienate these individuals from the hearing.

GRENVILLE PARK

Mr Villeneuve: This statement is oriented towards the Minister of Tourism and Recreation as well as the Chairman of Management Board.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission last year decided to close down five of its parks for economic reasons. The township of Osnabruck operated one of these parks very successfully, I might say, and showed a profit. Grenville Park right now is one of these four remaining parks that are still closed down and was closed in 1990 throughout the season. Mary Ann and Larry Cooper submitted the successful bid to reopen Grenville Park on a co-operative venture. If the government is scared of the word "privatization," we will use "co-operative." The government remains the owner of the park, and it will be operated successfully, I might say, by the Coopers.

The government is more interested in perception than substance in this case. We have at Grenville Park prime riverfront property waiting to be used by campers from Ontario, from Quebec, from New York state. We might even prevent a little bit of cross-border shopping from Ontario over to New York state. Let's reopen the park. Let's get the Coopers in there. They will not only fill that park but they will be looking to expand in the not-too-distant future.

I have confidence in these people. We have prime riverfront property. Let's get the bureaucrats and the politicians out of the way, and let's use our prime waterfront property.

POSTAL SERVICES

Mr Fletcher: Recently, postal workers in my riding of Guelph expressed concerns about the dismantling of the local postal services. Guelph union representatives remain convinced, despite the denials from Canada Post, that our historic downtown post office will be shut down. In fact, Canada Post has given the union an outline of plans for yet another franchise. This franchise will be located within three kilometres of the downtown post office and will offer full service, including 80 boxes, the same number already located downtown.

Canada Post maintains the property will not be sold, yet acknowledges that the post office might eventually close counter operations and become a processing centre. No wonder postal workers in my riding are wary. Just last year the city lost its 130-year-old postmark when Canada Post began sorting Guelph mail in Kitchener. This happened just six years after Canada Post assured city council it would not ship local mail to Kitchener for sorting.

The Guelph situation is a microcosm of the dismantling of our national postal service through privatization, franchising and contracting out services. Canada Post has 61,000 employees, and there are more than 60,000 grievances in the system. But our national postal system is much more than those statistics.

MP Len Taylor, the former New Democratic post office critic, noted in his report on the future of Canada's postal system that unlike so many federal institutions, our post office is an important part of our everyday life, of all Canadians, of farmers, fishers, small businesses, seniors, workers, cultural organizations, our families and friends.

Mr Taylor is correct in saying that the view that seeks profit before service and places big business before the health and safety of its employees and the interests of the vast majority of Canadians ignores the role of our national postal system and what it plays in our daily life.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Recently the Minister of Revenue travelled to Ottawa to meet her federal counterpart, Otto Jelinek, to ask him to collect the provincial sales tax at the border, the only solution this minister has come up with so far for the cross-border shopping epidemic.

The minister has not made a report of this meeting to the House, but we know that this minister, flushed with failure, told reporters that the federal government refused, and was punishing Ontario for opposing the GST.

Well, the next day, Mr Jelinek travelled to New Brunswick to meet with New Brunswick merchants and government officials. That very day he agreed that the federal government would collect the New Brunswick provincial sales tax at the border. The irony lies in the fact that the Liberal government in New Brunswick also opposes the GST, as did the previous Liberal government in Ontario and as the NDP government says it does here now.

The only people being punished are the merchants in the Ontario border communities, and the person meting out that punishment is the provincial Minister of Revenue, who would rather play politics than find solutions for one of the most important and pressing problems plaguing Ontario today.

BUDGET

Mrs Witmer: Last night, I, along with four of my colleagues, attended a meeting of the leader of the third party's task force on the budget. We were in Hamilton; it was the first stop in a five-stop swing through southern Ontario.

The task force originally planned to hold several more weeks of hearings throughout the province. However, we are pleased to be cancelling these plans in light of the government's announcement yesterday of an all-party public hearings process. However, we will be passing on to the all-party committee copies of all the presentations we have received, and if last night's presentation in Hamilton was any indication, there is much to be gained from reviewing the briefs that these individuals have presented.

Last night we had an opportunity to hear from individual taxpayers. We had an opportunity to hear from those involved in the trucking industry, those in housing, those who were concerned about social services. I would like to mention to members just one letter that was read to us from an individual.

They had received a letter from a foreign investor. The investor had decided to hold off establishing business ties in the region because of the recent Ontario budget. However, the good news is that the jury for that company is still out. Ties were not broken.

The all-party committee struck by Ontario's government yesterday can ensure that investors will once again have the confidence to invest in this province and that new jobs will be created.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Christopherson: It is with pride that I rise today to inform members of this House of just one of the benefits arising from the Treasurer's 29 April budget.

In my own community of Hamilton, I commend our city council for the leadership it has shown in announcing a 1.9% property tax increase for 1991, and both the public and separate school boards for their modest increase of 1.08%. In fact, the mayor of Hamilton has thanked our government for its sensitivity in increasing transfer payments to municipalities. When was the last time any municipal politician said that about an Ontario budget?

Our government has been squeezed by cuts in federal transfer payments which have cost Ontario an unprecedented $1.6 billion this year alone. As members of this House know, it has been the general practice of previous governments to pass these cuts on to municipalities, despite the fact that property tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation and hurts most those who can least afford it.

This budget demonstrates that the province has no intention of passing the buck or fighting the recession on the backs of municipalities. It shows our commitment to working with municipalities as our funding partners to maintain and promote the quality of services Ontarians need and deserve.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Now that we have captured everyone's attention, perhaps we can get on with business.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before proceeding to statements by ministers, members may wish to welcome to our assembly this afternoon the former member for Halton North, Walt Elliot, who is seated in the west gallery. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Hon Mr North: Each year millions of dollars are spent to build and maintain community recreation facilities. Millions of tax dollars have also gone into programs that encourage more people to take

part in recreation. Many thousands of Ontarians do take

part in community events alongside their friends, families and neighbours.

Every member in this House knows first hand about the tremendous value of community recreation. All three parties have supported it. Our government believes it is time to make sure the Ontario recreation system benefits everyone.

Today I am proud to announce major improvements in the way our ministry will allocate community recreation dollars. Our new approach has the goal that by 1994, Ontario communities will have developed new recreation opportunities so that all individuals, especially those now facing barriers that prevent equal participation, lead more active and healthy lives. This goal is part of our government's commitment to fairness. We are especially proud to make this announcement during National Access Awareness Week, which also reflects our strong commitment to fairness towards all people of Ontario.

Taking

part in community recreation can make a real and lasting difference in people's lives, but not everyone in Ontario has equal access to our recreation facilities and/or its programs. We want to ensure that everyone has a chance to take part. Therefore, I am pleased to announce major changes to our ministry's funding criteria. Our new program reaches out to people in eight priority groups. They are persons with disabilities, children and youth, women, working families, Franco-Ontarians, native people, older adults and visible minorities.

From now on, to qualify for funding under our new program, organizations must show that they will involve members from those priority groups in a significant way. This is a major change in policy. That is why our new funding requirements will be phased in over the next three years.

This new program will allow people to have full access to Ontario's recreation system. It will encourage traditional recreation groups to address the needs of others who do want to and will participate.

Our goal is a big one and so is the payoff. Our new program will make the recreation system stronger and more responsive to the changing social needs of the 1990s and beyond. I believe it will lead to more creative and innovative approaches to community recreation.

Our government takes leisure and recreation very seriously. Recreation can help reduce health care costs, provide a positive environment for children and adults and build better communities across this province. By making major improvements in our recreation system, we hope to give more opportunities to more people across this province.

CAMPUS SAFETY / SÉCURITÉ SUR LES CAMPUS

Hon Mr Allen: The promotion of safe and secure campuses is critical to the development of a positive learning and working environment for women students and employees at Ontario's colleges and universities.

At a time when 55% of the total student population at our post-secondary institutions is female, it is vital that we create a healthy environment on our campuses that will eliminate the crime of sexual assault and wipe away the causes of the existing fears of female students, faculty, administrators and staff. Simply stated, campuses that are not safe are not accessible.

À une époque où les femmes constituent 55 % de la population de nos établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire, il est essentiel de créer un climat sain sur nos campus en éliminant les crimes d'agression sexuelle et les sources des craintes des femmes qui sont étudiantes, professeures, administratrices et employées. En d'autres termes, les campus qui ne sont pas sécuritaires ne sont pas accessibles.

While many universities and colleges have already taken steps to address the issues related to sexual assault and harassment on campus, much remains to be done.

To help post-secondary institutions address their responsibilities in this area and to contribute further to the advancement of education and employment equity, I am pleased to be announcing the details of new initiatives aimed at improving safety and combating the harassment of women on college and university campuses across the province.

In addition to the initiatives already announced and receiving funding from the Ontario women's directorate that deal with date rape and wife assault, I am announcing two further initiatives. The first is making campuses safer for women, and the second is improving the atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs.

We will provide a total of $1.5 million this year and in 1992-93 to post-secondary institutions to develop measures to make campuses safer for women. Most of this money will be used to improve lighting, install emergency phones and create awareness campaigns that focus on the safety needs of female students, staff and faculty.

Nous consacrerons un montant de 1.5 million de dollars cette année et l'année prochaine pour aider les établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire à adopter des mesures visant à améliorer la sécurité des femmes sur les campus. Ces fonds serviront principalement à améliorer l'éclairage, à installer des appareils téléphoniques d'urgence et à réaliser des campagnes de sensibilisation mettant l'accent sur les besoins en matière de sécurité des femmes étudiantes, employées et professeures.

Up to $50,000 of this fund will be available to develop a project aimed at improving the current atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs. The project will be developed after consultation with universities, representatives of faculties of engineering and women in engineering.

I also would like to refer to two related initiatives.

This year, with the financial assistance of the Ontario women's directorate, my ministry will provide $200,000 for the development of a strategy to address the issue of date rape and to combat sexual harassment on our campuses. The strategy will include the development of a comprehensive training package with resource materials on this subject, distribution of materials to all colleges and universities and the delivery of instruction on the use of this package. Post-secondary institutions can use the strategy as required to meet their particular needs.

Violence against women is a major social problem that we must work hard to eliminate. It is important that we raise the awareness of faculty and students about the issues of wife assault. It is essential that students, in particular, be prepared to react appropriately in their professional lives to the needs of wife assault victims.

La violence faite aux femmes est un problème social important et nous devons travailler avec acharnement pour l'éliminer. Il est crucial de sensibiliser davantage le personnel enseignant et la population étudiante à la violence faite aux femmes. Il est essentiel que les étudiantes et les étudiants en particulier apprennent à réagir de façon appropriée au cours de leur vie professionnelle aux besoins des femmes violentées.

To help our post-secondary institutions in this area, my ministry, again with the financial help of the Ontario women's directorate, will provide $100,000 this year to support projects that focus on curriculum development in professional fields such as nursing, law and medicine that will address this issue.

We require a concerted effort by government and all members of the post-secondary community to eliminate violent behaviour towards women. The projects I have announced today build on many initiatives of this government, our institutions and local action groups that have been initiated to create a healthier and safer climate for women across the province.

I believe our colleges and universities can make a difference on the issue of women's safety by setting an example for others to follow. I look forward to the day when no person in this House need stand up and announce programs related to violence against women.

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr H. O'Neil: My response is in reply to the statement of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation about National Access Awareness Week. I can tell the minister that not one of us would disagree with the tremendous work that community projects such as this do, but while the minister was making the statement, a couple of our members said, "Old news." It is old news.

When I was Minister of Tourism and Recreation three or four years ago, that was one of the policy statements we had. We involved all of these people whenever we made grants and no grants were ever made for some of these community projects unless these people were involved and part of it. There were other programs and other ministries that provided money for access.

I would remind the minister also, when he is talking to his ministry officials, that when you look at the funding that has been given to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation for capital grants for some of these recreation facilities, this ministry has dropped from $32 million down to approximately $28 million and the projects have dropped from 479 down to 427. It is well to have these high ideals, but unless the minister has the backing to give more money to some of these projects, he is not going to have access for some of these groups.

I would also remind the minister that when we are talking about money for access and money for recreation, he should be buttonholing the Premier and the Treasurer, in fact maybe taking them by the scruff of the neck and saying, "More money should be given to Tourism and Recreation."

Yesterday, when our budget task force appeared in Collingwood, many of the people who appeared there on the tourism side said: "No one is speaking for us in tourism. No attention is being given to us." I know that here we are asking for additional money, but I can tell members that where the overall budget gave an increase of approximately 13% this year, as I mentioned, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation dropped from $32 million to $28 million, and the tourism industry is really hurting. Unless this government has a healthy tourism industry, it is not going to have the income coming into the Treasury to help keep these people in business.

Again, it is old stuff. The minister should get hold of the Premier and get hold of the Treasurer and tell them he wants some more attention given to those two areas of the government.

CAMPUS SAFETY

Mr Daigeler: Yesterday my colleague the esteemed member for St George-St David said the NDP always looks best when it announces projects that were under way by the previous Liberal government. I think the same thing is happening today with the announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, which I certainly am very appreciative of, because last August we announced, and I would like to read from the announcement:

"In recent years there has been a marked increase in violence against women on Ontario college and university campuses. Therefore, the Ontario Liberal government is establishing a fund to improve campus security. Its purpose will be to reduce safety hazards in the campus environment through changes such as improved lighting on walkways and in parking areas, ensuring safe access to buildings, installing emergency telephones on walkways, installing alarm systems in residences and classrooms."

Since the minister finally, almost a whole year later, is making these very same announcements, I am obviously very pleased that he is finally coming forward with these initiatives. However, I would like to indicate one thing. I think it is a very important matter the minister is addressing. He is unfortunately only looking at the symptoms. He is encouraging our university sector to become more sensitive to the issue of wife assault, and certainly I support that, but I wish the minister would go deeper and I wish his whole government would take the issue even more seriously.

I think it is time to look at the root causes, the origins of wife assault and violence against women. Why is it? What is wrong in our culture, in our economic system, in our social structure, that the thought of violence against women is even occurring?

I think the minister would do very well if he would encourage the university community to do very serious studies as to why it is that the thought of violence even occurs in the minds of men. I think his government could provide real leadership by doing a very in-depth and very serious study of the origins and causes of that kind of violence, because while it is important to treat the symptoms, and I congratulate the minister for his initiatives in that regard, I think it is even more important and more needed at this time to look at the causes and the root origins of that serious social problem which is violence against women.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to stand and respond today to the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. This is his second announcement since he was appointed minister some eight months ago that tells us nothing about his plans to address the serious issues affecting the tourism and recreation industries -- issues like the 32% increase in cross-border shopping through the months of February and March of this year and the incredible tax increases on cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline that the Premier's budget inflicted on these industries.

I want to know who the hell he was funding before, because that covers just about 9.5 million Ontarians. That is the province. When you walk into any arena in my community and his community, surely to God you see a number of these people from all these priority groups. It makes me wonder what this announcement is.

I am putting the minister on notice today that if this is a major change in policy, first of all, he has got to explain to us whom he was funding in the past and, second, if this is simply another communications plan by his ministry to make himself and his ministry look good, then I am putting him on notice that he had better not spend one more dollar of taxpayers' money on this sort of nonsense because this is the second vague, tell-us-nothing announcement he has made. He has been in office eight months and it is time he got down to the serious matters affecting the tourism and recreation industry.

We all agree on, and both the Liberals and the Conservatives have very good records in the past of, for instance, removing physical barriers for physically challenged people. He addressed that issue in his previous statement a few weeks ago. But if the minister is going to spend millions of dollars on a communications plan that does nothing for these people, or any of the other people in his so-called eight priority groups, then I am telling him that he is going to have the toughest time of any parliamentarian in this House.

CAMPUS SAFETY

Mrs Cunningham: We of course would agree with the Minister of Colleges and Universities and encourage him in his work to make campuses safer in Ontario.

At this point, I would like to address the second part of the minister's announcement, and that is the

part in regard to a fund to improve the current atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs.

I myself introduced a resolution, in December 1990, that stated that we need a highly skilled work force to maintain Ontario's economic competitiveness. I encourage the minister to establish a WISE fund, women in science and engineering. I am sure he will remember it well.

I take a look at this $50,000 as just the beginning. I will send the minister the backgrounder that talks about the WISE fund, women in science and engineering, that talks about a fund to encourage women to study engineering and applied science. It is very specific in that scholarships would be awarded to 500 women entering engineering studies and 300 women entering applied science courses over the next five years. It would pay full tuition expenses for each of the four years of the students' programs. It would be allocated to the 16 universities. These are all of the scholarship funds.

I think what we really need are more women in engineering and I am certain this House would encourage the minister in his work to make certain that happens in the term of his government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Scott: Is the Attorney General coming in? If not, I would like to stand down two leader's questions.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Carr: It is a pleasure to get a chance to go first.

My question is to the Solicitor General. It deals with the Budd Canada case. I would like to read him a quote from Wayne Sudds, who said Staff Inspector John Westbrook told him on 26 April that the Ministry of the Solicitor General told the police not to back off on the picket line confrontations. Reading from his notes, he said, "Mr Westbrook, based on the conversation, said there would be no assistance to transport products across the line." Mr Sudds said, "Mr Westbrook, the officer who co-ordinated the strike, said it was the first time in his career that the government had intervened in a labour dispute."

My question is very clearly that in light of the contradictions I would like to know if he would explain to the House exactly what was said during this famous telephone conversation.

Hon Mr Farnan: First, let us reiterate once again the words of the chief of police for the Waterloo region. His words are, "There was no attempt to influence local operational decisions by the Ministry of the Solicitor General." They are the words of the chief of police for the Waterloo region.

Second, what exactly transpired? My understanding is that this is the advice that was given: Information first of all that there was a phone call from a union member, that the union member was interested and the union was interested in being able to talk to the police about having a peaceful existence on the picket line.

The advice that was given by the policing services division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General was, "If you're talking to the union, it would probably be a good idea if you also spoke to the management." That sounds like very good advice to me, not to speak to one partner in a dispute but to speak to both. That is the extent and the limit of the advice. I am very proud of the very balanced role that the policing services division took in this particular instance.

Mr Carr: The problem we have is the contradictions, because not only the company president but the union president, John Coleman, have said that Westbrook also told company and union officials that police were getting pressure from Queen's Park. It goes on to say that yes, the police said there was no pressure, but we have the union, the company and also the security firm saying there was pressure. Also, the minister's executive assistant said, and I quote from a newspaper report, "It was simply a recommendation."

My question is very simply, what formal instructions has the Solicitor General given to his ministry not to interfere with police forces across this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me instruct the critic for the Conservative Party. We have a legislative responsibility under the new Police Services Act to provide both information and advice to policing services in the field, particularly when there are special circumstances where there are problems. It is a legislative responsibility. Indeed, one could say it is a duty, but it is a duty we are very careful about, because we realize that the operational decisions by policing services must be made by the local chief of police and his police force.

In a very delicate situation, we informed the local chief of police that yes indeed the union was concerned. We also added the caveat that perhaps it would be wise not only to talk to the union but to talk to the management at the same time. In addition, let me just add that as a result automotive parts were allowed to move out of the factory to facilitate the management. The police did a wonderful job in this instance.

Mr Carr: I would like to see if the Solicitor General will confirm that this is the first time his ministry has in fact made a phone call during a labour dispute. We now know that one of the circumstances when a phone call is made is when there is a labour dispute and I would like to see if the Solicitor General could outline today in what other circumstances he feels his ministry will interfere with police forces across this province. We know that he will during labour disputes. Perhaps he could outline in what other circumstances his ministry feels it is appropriate to interfere with the police forces across this province.

Hon Mr Farnan: Again let me try to bring the critic up to speed. The role of the Solicitor General, of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the role of policing services, is public safety. If there is public safety at stake on the picket line or in any other circumstance, we have a responsibility as a ministry to pass on information. Indeed, the legislation, I would remind the member, gives us a duty not only to provide information but in problematic situations to render advice. But the advice is only advice. It can be used by the chief as he pleases. In this case the chief has clearly indicated that there was no attempt to influence. What more does the member want?

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I would like to ask the Attorney General a question about the Farnan affair.

Mr Harnick: Which one?

Mr Scott: It is a good point, which one, but the one that first occupied us.

He will be aware that the issue of ministerial responsibility as it applies to the Solicitor General with respect to his office staff is an important issue. Indeed, as he will also be aware, almost every major newspaper in Ontario has called for the resignation of the Solicitor General, whether he has personal responsibility --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: The three Toronto newspapers, Ottawa newspapers, London newspapers, newspapers all across the province. But that is not the end of the matter. The really difficult problem that presents is not with the Solicitor General, but the unwillingness of the Premier to enforce his own guidelines.

In a major comment on ministerial, as opposed to personal, responsibility in 1985 or 1984, the now Premier said about ministerial responsibility, "If sometimes these doctrines mete out justice that seems a little hard in some circumstances, that is the way it has to be to protect the basic traditions of the place." The concern that is indicated is not about the Solicitor General but also about the Premier, because as the Globe and Mail said this morning, "The Premier's position is markedly at odds with the stance he adopted a year ago."

What I want to ask the Attorney General very simply is this: Was he or his ministerial staff aware when he commissioned the RCMP report that the report would be RCMP property and would not therefore be made public? Was he aware of that?

Hon Mr Hampton: No.

Mr Scott: I am glad to hear that, in light of the assurances --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: I am glad to hear the Premier's answer through the Attorney General, furnished as it was, but it is good to have a one-word answer anyway.

I simply ask that question because the tenor of the Attorney General's answers while the RCMP report was being commissioned was that if it was at all within his power, he would make all of it public. That was the clear assurance he gave, not merely to members of the House but to the press and the general public. That is what he said. Indeed, yesterday he said, "I have no opposition to the release of the report by the police, but they have made it specifically known that they regard the report as their property."

Our party has made a freedom-of-information request for the police report, which is in the possession of the Ministry of the Attorney General and which has been read by him and by the Premier, I understand. The question I want to ask is, will the Attorney --

Interjection.

Mr Scott: It is never read by the member?

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is one of two allegations which the member has made in his question. I want to make it very clear, I have never seen any RCMP report.

Mr Scott: I think the Premier should read the RCMP report but, if he has not, I accept the correction.

The point I want to make, in the form of a question, is this: The Attorney General has said that if it was up to him he would release the report. That is the impression he created for two weeks in this House. We have made a freedom-of-information request. Will he undertake now to consent to that request, or not to object to it?

Hon Mr Hampton: It is unfortunate that I always have to correct the member for St George-St David. First of all, in my answer some weeks ago when asked if the report might be released, I said that I would consider the issue with crown legal advisers, with criminal lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, and that if it were appropriate and proper, I would consider the releasing of the report.

The advice I have received is that this report, like many other police reports, has in it references to third parties. Some of the information is secondhand information. Some of it may be unflattering. Those individuals certainly have a privacy interest.

That may not matter to the member for St George-St David. We have already seen that he is capable of saying almost anything about anybody and making all kinds of allegations here. But it does mean something to me, so I will say this: I have no opposition to the RCMP releasing the report, but it is very clear in its information to me that it considers the report its property. So if the member wants to make a freedom-of-information application, as I have said, I have no opposition to the release of the report.

Mr Scott: I am very grateful for that answer and to know the Attorney General will not oppose an application under the freedom-of-information act. I make that point because there are two ways to oppose the release of this report: one on general disclosure grounds and, second, on the basis that it is the RCMP's property. If he will not object to a freedom-of-information request, that will be made and I am confident that under the act the report will in due course be released.

But I want to make one further point to the Attorney General. When Ken Keyes was investigated, and indeed a criminal charge of a minor type was laid against him, that report was made public by the government at the explicit urging of the Leader of the Opposition of the day, who was calling coverup and all the rest of it all over the place when different and easier standards were applied by us.

Here is what the Premier of the day said: "The Attorney General decided to make that police report" -- about Ken Keyes -- "public even though it is not the custom because of the particularly sensitive nature of this matter and given the fact that it was the Solicitor General who was involved."

They required our government to maintain high standards. We hope they will have the guts to maintain those standards themselves with respect to this police report. As long as the Attorney General is going to hide behind the RCMP ownership of the police report, there are two documents in that report that he owns: One is the letter of the Deputy Attorney General and one is the written instructions given by the Solicitor General to his staff. Will the Attorney General please release both those documents which he owns, yes or no?

Hon Mr Hampton: I provided yesterday to the Legislature and to the media a

summary of the information that is dealt with in the RCMP report. The only thing that is taken out of the RCMP report in terms of detail are the names of individuals who were interviewed by the RCMP. I can tell the member, as I told him yesterday, that the details of the letter I received from the deputy giving me her report are contained within the summation.

I have given him more and I have given members of the Legislature more in terms of accountability than the member for St George-St David was willing to give on many occasions, and I quoted back for him yesterday his own words, where he said that in general -- and I agree with this -- the details of police reports ought not to be released because they contain secondhand and thirdhand information about parties who are not the subject of the investigation, but who get involved in the investigation and who have comments made about them. They have a privacy interest and that privacy interest deserves to be respected.

So the member has the summation which is all of the details, minus the names of innocent individuals who were interviewed.

Mr Scott: The Attorney General emotes at great length, but what we are asking for now is a memo from his deputy to him and a memo from the Solicitor General to the Solicitor General's staff. The interesting thing is, they will not make that available. There is no reason why they should not, and I know why. I have an idea what is in it.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Scott: Now I have a question for the Solicitor General about the next problem that he confronts. Yesterday, while responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Solicitor General failed to tell the Legislature, I am led to believe, why his office was contacted by union officials with regard to the Budd strike. In the words of the union president, who made a substantial contribution to their campaign and is therefore trustworthy, John Coleman, a call was made to see if the Solicitor General would "place pressure upon the police to withdraw."

Can the Solicitor General confirm that his office was contacted by this union official and that the call was made for the purpose Mr Coleman says the call was made for, "to place pressure upon the police to withdraw"?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have very clearly indicated to the House, first of all, that a call was placed to my office and that my staff very correctly took that message and passed it on to the policing services division. In other words, my staff were not going to deal with that issue; they were going to pass it on to the appropriate agency that would deal with it. The policing services division received the message from my staff that the union wanted to make contact with the local police in order to address issues of disturbances upon the picket line.

The policing services then transmitted this information to the local chief of police, and the local chief of police is very clearly on record. Chief Harold Basse says there was no attempt to influence.

Mr Scott: We are now putting this together bit by bit. We now have it that the union president made a call to the Solicitor General's own office, not the ministry, which was received by his staff, those staff to whom he gives direction, we understand, and that, according to Mr Coleman, the purpose of that was to place pressure upon the police to withdraw. Following that, three calls were made by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to the police. One was made to the chief of police.

A second call was made to the deputy, and the minister has explained that policy directions are obliged to be given by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to police. The third was made to -- let me get his name -- Inspector Westbrook, who was not a chief of police or in charge of policy but who was the man in charge of the day-to-day Budd strike.

I want to ask the minister, in light of what he said today, two things. First of all, did his office staff pass on to the ministry Mr Coleman's request to place pressure upon the police to withdraw and, second, what information would his ministry be giving to Inspector Westbrook on a policy matter, who is standing right there on the picket line supervising?

Hon Mr Farnan: The information I have is that Mr Coleman did contact my ministry staff. In contacting them, the message is this --

Mr Elston: Your office?

Hon Mr Farnan: My office. In contacting, the message is very clear: We have difficulty communicating with the police locally and we are concerned about the situation on the picket line. That is the message -- no more, no less. That message was transferred to the policing services division. The policing services division passes this message on to the local police force and by way of advice suggests that if they are meeting with the union, perhaps it would make good sense to involve the management.

What can be more balanced? What can be more fair? What can be more proactive in preventive policing than the actions taken by my ministry?

Mr Scott: It is becoming increasingly clear that this Solicitor General, the second law officer of the province, has grave difficulty, as does his office staff, apparently, in understanding the difference between politics being conducted as usual and the administration of justice in the province.

He refused to answer my question on whether he passed on to the ministry staff his constituent Mr Coleman's request that pressure be brought on the police to withdraw. He refused to answer that. I wonder why. This may shed some light on it. As the Conservative critic has pointed out, John Westbrook, the police inspector on the picket line, had a conversation with Sudds, who is himself a peace officer, of which Sudds took notes.

Here is what Sudds says: that he spoke to Westbrook, the inspector, and Westbrook said to him that the Ministry of the Solicitor General told the police to back off from picket line confrontation and -- wait for this -- that this was the first time in Westbrook's long career that any government had intervened in this way in a labour dispute.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary.

Mr Scott: I want to ask the honourable member when he is going to permit this business to be clarified by ordering a thorough investigation or by submitting the issue to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Hon Mr Farnan: This is not "somebody told somebody told somebody told somebody." This is a direct quote from the chief of police of Waterloo regional county: "There was no attempt to influence by the Ministry of the Solicitor General." That is as clear as you can get.

The second point the member should remember is this: As a result of the intervention, as a result of the actions taken by the local police force, goods happened to be moved out of the company to the benefit of management and the peace was kept. The goals and aims of management were met as a result of good, preventive, positive policing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Willowdale.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. It is the member for Willowdale who has the floor right now.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. No one ever alleged that the incident and now incidents involving the Solicitor General were criminal in nature, yet --

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: With all due respect, I tell members to read the Hansard. Yet the RCMP was brought in to do a criminal investigation and, lo and behold, in a non-criminal matter it found no criminal charges warranted. However, the evidence continues to show -- and every day it gets worse -- that the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines have been breached by the Solicitor General, and the evidence is that his conduct has been improper.

I refer the Premier to his conflict guideline 4, under fundamental principles. I interpret "fundamental" to mean "basic." It says: "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny."

The Premier has an opportunity now to permit the closest public scrutiny by referring all these incidents to the justice committee for the closest public scrutiny to clear the name of his Solicitor General. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to just say to the honourable member that I cannot imagine a closer public scrutiny than what we have been through in this House over the last several weeks. Let's be fair in the circumstances. The Attorney General, without any consultation with anyone, as is quite appropriate, decided, on advice and discussion within his own ministry, without any discussion with anybody else, as is entirely his responsibility, to call in the RCMP because of his concern, I am sure, that no stone be left unturned in terms of an investigation. That was carried out.

Now, I have said in this House on a number of occasions with respect to this matter that I believe the accounts I have given to this House have been as clear as I can make them. I am happy to answer questions on this and to have this discussion here in this House in terms of answering these questions as clearly as I can. This is all out in the open in terms of what has taken place.

There were innocent mistakes made that should not have been made by people working in the constituency office of the minister, without the minister's knowledge. We have the RCMP investigation. We have a report from the director of criminal prosecutions of the Ministry of the Attorney General saying that in their opinion, there is no basis for a criminal charge, and that as far as they are concerned, on the terms of the information they had from the RCMP, the minister is a person of complete honesty and integrity with respect to the conduct of his duties.

I do not know what else the members opposite really want. If they are interested in the truth, they have got it right there in front of them.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate the Premier's offer to investigate this in this House. However, he has not provided us with all the documentation that will permit a real investigation.

Let me go on with the conduct of the Solicitor General, the part of the conduct that has not been investigated because it was not subject of a criminal matter.

The Solicitor General told this House that he gave his staff specific instructions to remain at arm's length from the judiciary. He tells us that he gave these instructions in February, in spite of the fact that he had the Premier's guidelines in December. Right away, that has to make his credibility somewhat suspect.

We now see, after that three-month delay, a report of the director of criminal prosecutions that shows that a staff member, referred to as member 2, who was a receptionist, had in fact no written guidelines or directions. The report -- and I refer the Premier to paragraph 25 --

The Speaker: The interrogative part?

Mr Harnick: -- is silent regarding oral instructions to her. I can only conclude, if it is silent, he did not give those oral instructions, or surely that would have been a focus of the report.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Harnick: What we have is a conflict between what the Solicitor General told this House and what the Solicitor General told the RCMP. Now, if that does not concern the Premier, then all I can say is that the Premier's standards have sunk to the basement. Will he institute an investigation through the justice committee to look into the responsibility of this minister in terms of his activities regarding these matters, or is he going to continue to cover them up and not let him clear his name?

Hon Mr Rae: In terms of the minister's name, I will let the director of criminal prosecutions -- if he wants to talk about clearing someone's name, why does he not read this out one day, page 8: "The Solicitor General impressed the officers" -- he is referring to the RCMP. This is the investigation the member yesterday said was garbage. That was his comment on an RCMP investigation. That is how impressive he was yesterday -- "as being a man of high integrity who was making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as the Solicitor General.

No evidence of benefit, directly or indirectly, from the writing of these letters was obtained during the course of the investigation." That represents a significant and fair, independent clearing of the name of the Solicitor General of this province. What more does the member want?

Mr Harnick: That may represent a clearing of his name in so far as a criminal prosecution is concerned. There is more to this matter than a criminal prosecution. It is obvious the Premier's guidelines have become meaningless. It is obvious that what he is doing is being done for political expediency. It is obvious that he is incapable of being the author, the judge and the jury in terms of enforcement of his guidelines. His guidelines are worthless because he will not enforce them.

Now, unless the Premier is prepared to investigate this matter, his guidelines are nothing more than a sham. If his guidelines mean anything and if his guidelines are to be used and respected, he must send this matter to the justice committee for investigation. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I heard a long and vituperative

preamble to a question. I did not hear very much of a question.

I will only say to the honourable member that I have indicated very clearly to the House, and the minister has indicated very clearly, that he at no time authorized or advised any contact with the judiciary, and if the member wants to refer to sections 19 and 20 of the guidelines, they are very clear in that regard.

An innocent mistake was made by members of the minister's constituency office staff, trying in good faith to serve the interests of their constituents. No benefit was received by anyone, no advantage was taken by anyone, and I cannot see how members can turn this into the kind of furore that they are pathetically attempting to do today and on other days.

Mr Scott: What is really pathetic is that this man was prepared to hang Frank Miller, he was prepared to get rid of Ken Keyes because he had a beer on a police boat, but when his troops are at the trough, it is deny, deny, deny, stonewall, stonewall, stonewall, cover up, cover up. That is what it is.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is all coming out slowly. Mr Coleman has now said that he called the minister's office for the minister to put pressure on the police to withdraw. He said that. Inspector Westbrook has said this kind of government interference had never happened before in his career. Let us read some more of what Westbrook says. He says, "I think it is a pretty serious case" --

Interjection.

Mr Scott: The member may laugh, but we are talking about law and order. Here is what Inspector Westbrook says and here is why we want an inquiry, and this is a police officer speaking: "I think it is a pretty serious case when Queen's Park starts interfering with the policing as far as taking sides goes. It is obvious the police were siding with the union in this one." Does that help the Solicitor General come to a conclusion that maybe the committee should examine what happened here?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me say this: I have tremendous good faith in both Chief Harold Basse of the Waterloo Regional Police and in the board of commissioners of that police service.

If there were any suggestion that anything untoward was happening within that police force, if there were any external influence on that police force, Chief Harold Basse would be the first to straighten this matter out. Chief Basse is on the record as saying there was no influence from my ministry, no attempt to influence. That is the chief, and at this stage that is where it remains.

Mr Scott: We have the opinion of the Solicitor General, but against him we have the expressed intention of the president of the union, which he has given in public, we have Inspector Westbrook against him saying this was Queen's Park interfering and, just to make the record clear, today a representative of our caucus spoke with the deputy chief of police, Miller, who said it was clearly unusual for the union to contact the Solicitor General's office regarding the strike situation. He felt that -- now just a minute.

Interjections.

Mr Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David has the floor.

Mr Scott: Here is what the deputy chief of the Waterloo Regional Police said. He said the reasons for the contact, in his opinion, could only have been to have the government place political pressure.

We have two senior police officers and the president of the union pointing directly at the Solicitor General. Can the justice committee look at this, or is the minister going to stonewall this second one too?

Hon Mr Farnan: Anybody under the sun can approach my ministry or any other ministry and ask for special favours. That is not what is important. What is important is whether they get those favours, and they get no favours, period.

GEORGIAN LAKELANDS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister should be aware that the Georgian Lakelands board has passed a motion to dissolve the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association, and that motion will be put forward on 5 June at its annual meeting.

In a letter sent to the minister by the president of Georgian Lakelands, the president said, "This decision was not reached lightly, but as the motion indicates, the constraints placed on Georgian Lakelands by the Ministry of Tourism makes it impossible to continue effectively." This travel association does not want to fold, but is being forced to do so because of the unrealistic funding structure of the Ontario travel association program, OTAP.

Can the minister tell this House today what he intends to do to prevent the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association from closing shop?

Hon Mr Laughren: Spend, spend, spend.

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question that has been put forth. I understand, on the one hand, that they wish us to try and control our spending and, on the other hand, that they would like us to spend, spend, spend. I do not want to use that in any way to somehow get away from what the member is saying, and I appreciate his asking the question about Georgian Lakelands. I will attempt with the ministry to see if there is something that can be done and I will attempt to get the member an answer in the short term.

Mr J. Wilson: I am constantly surprised in this House how little the Minister of Tourism and Recreation knows about his own programs. I would like to inform the Treasurer, who says, "Spend, spend, spend," this is not new money. It is already allocated money. There is a problem with the funding structure.

The minister should know that the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association is comprised of four distinct tourist associations.

Interjection.

Mr J. Wilson: The Treasurer will be interested in this, so he should just be quiet for a minute.

These tourist associations raised $1.6 million from the private sector already. The problem is that the umbrella group, the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association, is required to raise another $110,000 because the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will not recognize the $1.6 million already raised from the private sector.

Why will the minister not recognize this money raised by the four tourist associations? Will he agree today to revise the Ontario travel association program so dollars already allocated under his ministry can have matching funding, can go to meaningful tourism programs, and so Georgian Lakelands will not have to close its doors?

Hon Mr North: Across the province, we have worked with travel associations and we have had a very good relationship with them. I have met with a number of the travel associations just recently. I met with the Southwestern Ontario Travel Association, I met with the James Bay Frontier Travel Association, and the relationship has been good. If the member across the floor suggests that we should have further conversations with travel associations, perhaps it is not a bad idea. I appreciate the suggestion.

LIBRARY BOARD

Mr Waters: My question is addressed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Last week I received a carbon-copied letter addressed to the minister from a constituent regarding the proposed legislation to dissolve the Mississauga library board. I realize that Mississauga is not in my riding, but what I and many of my constituents are concerned about is how this decision will affect small library boards such as the many dispersed ones in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and in general the ones in northern Ontario.

Many individuals are concerned that if our government dissolves its dedication to libraries in general, it will discourage reading and promote illiteracy among northern populations who already have limited access. Could the minister outline the purpose of the proposed legislation to abolish the library board of the municipality of Mississauga?

Hon Mr Marchese: I thank the member for the question. The Public Libraries Act requires that libraries be managed by a board appointed for the most part by the municipal councils where they are located. My ministry continues to support the concept of independent library boards. The councils may consider replacing a board with a committee of council through a private bill. To my knowledge, the council of Mississauga is the only council that has come to my attention requesting that a private bill be drawn up by the Attorney General.

Because of the concern over this issue, a concern expressed by many people within libraries, I have asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands, to undertake a consultation process with the library community. I am anticipating a report on that this summer, at which point I will finalize my answer. But at the moment I am not contemplating any legislation that would make the elimination of boards an easy option for municipalities in general.

Mr Waters: How will this affect northern library boards in townships and municipalities?

Hon Mr Marchese: With respect to northern libraries, representatives from smaller libraries have been in contact with my office. They are being consulted as well as part of this consultation with library people in communities. They have told me how vulnerable they would be, how vulnerable they are to budget cuts and other areas of concern. If the library boards were replaced, we would obviously be very sensitive to those arguments. But any decisions we would take would not jeopardize smaller libraries.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. All members of the House will be aware of the very serious concerns in the business and entrepreneurial sectors about the extension of liability for wages and benefits to corporate officers as contained in the wage protection legislation.

As well, there are very grave concerns about the effect this bill will have on the viability of non-profit corporations such as children's aid societies, co-operatives and others. These groups have made their positions and the reasons for them well known to the minister. On this issue, he must know their position and the reasons for it.

To alleviate their concerns, will the minister today agree to amendments to the bill which would remove officers who are not involved in corporate decision-making and non-profit entities from the legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The honourable member will know that is the third time I have had that question and the answer to it is the same each time. As soon as we get on with the bill in this Legislature, we are prepared to take a look at the areas of concern the member has outlined.

Mr Offer: These individuals and non-profit corporations have made their concerns well known to the minister. All we ask is for the minister to stand up and make a commitment to them that they would be excluded from the legislation.

If the minister is not ready to take this step, and I do believe he is probably ripping the principle of this legislation out, will he at least ensure that all these groups coming forward will have the opportunity to voice their concerns about the wage protection fund? Will the minister commit today to sending this bill out to public hearings throughout the summer?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think once we have gone through the debate in the House here on second reading, the decision will be made as to what is to happen to the bill. At that point in time we will take a look at the arguments that are made to us.

Mrs Caplan: What? You are not going to send them to public hearings?

The Speaker: New question. The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education.

Mrs Caplan: That is outrageous.

The Speaker: The member for London North has the floor, not the member for Oriole.

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the member --

Mrs Caplan: Why did you say yes?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, unfortunately it is not your turn to ask a question.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. On 10 May 1991 the minister addressed the London Home and School Association at Oakridge Secondary School. In the opinion of the parents and the teachers and the trustees present, the comments on the subject of destreaming were vague, leaving trustees especially very confused as to the minister's position. Would the minister advise this House when destreaming must be in effect for grade 9 students in Ontario schools?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The previous government had set a deadline of September 1992. By that time the results of the various pilot projects -- I believe there are about 65 in place across the province -- will not have been known and evaluated appropriately for us to make a unilateral and complete decision that everyone must destream.

There are many boards that are ready to destream now. Some are indicating an interest in doing that this September, and they certainly are able to do that if that is their choice. Many are saying they have been heading for the September 1992 deadline and they feel no reason not to carry on on track. There are others who are very distressed by the whole idea of destreaming, particularly when it is strictly focused at grade 9. They have indicated in their responses to the Transition Years report as part of the curriculum review that they would like to see some delay.

We have also had representations from a number of teacher groups that are quite concerned about the nature of teaching that is required in destreamed classrooms as opposed to streamed classrooms where they have been taught to teach. There is good reason for us to be concerned that in fact the destreaming initiative may not work unless we are able to put some professional development dollars into helping those teachers cope with destreamed classrooms.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The ministry is basically taking the position that we are prepared to be flexible about the deadline where that is a request from boards, but that we certainly are not backing off from the principle at all. We do believe that destreaming is the route to go, but we think it needs to be supported by the kind of teacher training and by the kind of infrastructure that --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- is going to make it work.

Mr. Cunningham: Given the response from the minister today, I will conclude, then, that the policy of the government is that if boards request not to destream by September 1992 for the reasons they would provide to the minister, they will be allowed not to follow the direction of the 1992 destreaming advice that is right now being given to school boards by ministry offices. If this is a clarification we can send out today, then I appreciate that.

I would also say, though, that this debate around destreaming is a very personal one from board to board and from family to family. I think in planning I am not only talking about program. I am talking about funding. I am talking about one-to-one support for students. I am talking about new schools. I am talking about an exodus from other schools. It is important that in fact school boards have very clear policy decisions from this ministry.

The Speaker: And your question?

Mrs Cunningham: Will the minister involve the trustees immediately in the discussions as per her statement today, immediate discussion with the trustees?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have already had occasion to talk to all the trustee groups and we have discussed this rather thoroughly. They know that from our point of view we are not happy with the set deadline, and when we have talked to the educational councils right across the province we certainly indicated our position of flexibility. We do not want school boards to interpret that as any withdrawal from the principle of destreaming and we are being very clear about that, but we are acknowledging the concerns when the consultation is brought forward.

This member asked a question a few weeks ago that was put forward by the Ontario Teachers' Federation as to whether we wanted to stop and look at where we are going with the whole picture of curriculum review and bring in some of those issues the member mentioned. I indicated at that time that I thought that was an excellent idea and we will indeed be proceeding to do that in the fall.

At that point in time, when we have that overview in terms of that pause time, that whole picture, then it will be appropriate for us to be much clearer about the results of that consultation and exactly how and the timetable. So my message to school boards is that we are being flexible. We will not enforce the September 1992 deadline, but we are still working in that direction and in no way want the boards to stop working in that direction.

Mr Malkowski: This week is National Access Awareness Week and my question is to the Minister of Housing. He made an announcement yesterday regarding changes to the Building Code Act. What changes have been made to improve barrier-free access?

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question and the importance of the question. The member and the members will be aware that the Building Code Act introduced yesterday has certain changes proposed to the act, and then the code itself, the regulations associated with the act, will also have to have some changes in the future. There were changes made to the code in the fall that were worked on by the previous government and brought in in October, I believe, that made improvements for access to and exiting from the buildings, building dimensions and the dimensions of rooms and doors and so forth to make buildings more accessible to the physically challenged in the province.

Yesterday's legislation had a

section that will enable the province to bring in a code for existing buildings, and we will be able to work in consultation with groups across the province to develop a code for existing buildings which we will have to address as well, the whole issue of access for the physically challenged.

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, we have to pass the legislation and we will want to have a debate and perhaps even hearings on the proposed legislation. After the legislation is passed, our ministry will want to consult with groups in the province as to how to design the regulations associated with the act so that we can bring in access in existing buildings. We will want to consult with groups associated with the physically challenged as well as the private sector in order to strike that appropriate balance necessary to ensure access to existing buildings in the province.

PLANT CLOSURE IN CORBYVILLE

Mr H. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday, Corby Distilleries Ltd, located north of Belleville, and I believe in one of the government's ridings, the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, announced it would be closing its Corbyville bottling and blending facility and laying off approximately 170 people. This distillery has been in Corbyville since before Confederation, a total of approximately 132 years. Many of the workers have been there all their working years and it is part of their history and their lives that is being taken away.

Could the minister point out what he has done and is prepared to do to prevent this terrible loss of jobs in Corbyville?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I refer that question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It is indeed very regrettable that Corby Distilleries made the decision it has. Hiram Walker will close its sales and regional office and there will be a termination of some 85 employees, 44 of whom are in Ontario. The reasons given by the company for making these adjustments are increased taxation, global competition and a reduced demand as a result of changing lifestyles by its particular clients.

If there is some avenue in which we can assist to change this company's decision, we certainly are available to do that. But to be quite frank and open with the member who asked the question, I believe this is a decision the corporation has made and we do not see a direct way in which to affect it particularly, although we wish there were one.

Mr H. O'Neil: The statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology reads like he has taken it right from their press release. I guess what I am asking the minister and also the Minister of Labour, because he would have been the first to demand that something be done about a major closing, is where he got his figure of 85. The number is 170 jobs.

I am asking him not to mouth the press release they put out. I am asking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, along with the Minister of Labour, if he is prepared to call in that company and the union and speak to both of those parties to see if something cannot be done to keep that plant open. What is he going to do?

Hon Mr Pilkey: My understanding is that the officials of the Ministry of Labour have met and are going to see that the appropriate adjustments are made. I am indicating to the questioner that there are market forces that come into play that are the basis of some corporate decisions, and from our perspective this is not a particular instance where government programs can assist. I wish that were the case.

The member who asked the question well knows that we supported companies through the Ontario Development Corp in terms of incentives and loan incentives and other programs where they were deemed to be appropriate and might assist. Due to the change of market conditions and changing lifestyles of the public, it would appear that this is not a particular case in which we can be effective in that sense.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Cousens: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for race relations. The minister will recall my question of 9 May dealing with the tremendous backlog of cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The minister acknowledged that the backlog was a serious matter and that the new case management system that was initiated "obviously...has not worked."

We are now aware of a report commissioned last year by Commissioner Frazee that says the commission's Toronto West office is plagued by racial tension, overworked staff, poor training and internal strife. However, according to this article, Commissioner Frazee felt the report's findings were no longer accurate.

I would like to ask the minister if she supports the commissioner's view of this report and, second, just how much this consultant's report cost the taxpayers of Ontario given that its findings are no longer relevant.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am glad the member has raised this question because it is really a very important question. Before being elected on 6 September, I was very shocked when I heard rumours that in those particular offices racism existed and even in the human rights commission, because I did not see the government of the day showing any concern or working on rectifying that situation.

We have come into a situation we have inherited that is very serious. I agree with the member. I was seriously considering all the initiatives we can take. I looked into the situation and all of the reports and saw that some of the recommendations made by the various consultant groups commissioned by the previous government have been initiated and done. But we also felt it was not enough, and that is why we introduced the anti-racism strategy to make sure this would not happen again in any other agency, commission, board or any other ministry. That is why it was such an important initiative and that is why we decided to make sure we looked at that.

I am not sure of the exact cost of the previous government's consultant's costs, but I can certainly find out and get back to him.

Mr Cousens: The human rights commission's program purpose is "to create at the community level the climate of understanding and mutual respect in which individuals are made to feel equal in dignity and rights." That was given in the estimates

summary of 1991-92. In reality, the human rights commission has a base budget of $12 million a year. It got $3 million allocated to improve its backlog of cases that the minister says is still not working. It has documented funds from its own report that the staff are overworked, stressed out, do not have proper training and fear racial reprisals.

I ask the minister, how in the world can the Ontario Human Rights Commission create a climate of understanding and mutual respect at the community level for the people of Ontario when it cannot even do this within its own administration? Just where is all the money going over there? Does the minister have another consultant's report under way, and could I please have a copy of it?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Those are very good points. Because the previous government had allocated quite an increase in the OHRC's budget, we felt this year that it was not right to do that, and because throwing more money after the case log had not diminished the case log, in fact had done nothing at all, we felt we were not going to do that. We were going to make sure the OHRC worked within a very good mode and made sure it addressed those issues.

Now, we do not have another consultant's report because I feel we have staff within the bureaucracy who can come back. We had several reports that have been tabled over the last number of years and we can follow through with those recommendations. I do not feel the time has come to spend more money on another consultant, so we are looking at the various consultants' reports that have been done over the vast number of years, 15 years, to see how we can implement those recommendations without costing the taxpayers any more money and keeping within the economic restraints as we must do at this particular time.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Miss Martel moved that Ms Gigantes be substituted for Mr F. Wilson on the standing committee on administration of justice.

Motion agreed to.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Kormos: I thank the members of the opposition parties who generate such cacophonous applause, notwithstanding their small numbers.

Obviously I was not Chair of this committee; the member for Sarnia was Chair of the committee when it did its deliberations and a number of people from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and of course the governing New Democratic Party made significant contributions.

On behalf of the committee, I also want to thank the staff: Harold Brown, the clerk, who made significant contributions, and Lewis Yaeger and Lorraine Luski, both from research, who did a whole lot of hard work.

The report deals with two phenomena here in Ontario: one, the matter of zebra mussels and two, the matter of purple loosestrife. Both of these are matters about which a whole lot of people out there in communities across this province have significant interest. Copies of the report are available in some limited numbers and I invite people to write or call in to obtain copies of that report. It is going to be of particular interest to communities that border on waterways, lakes, rivers, streams. It is also going to be of interest to tourism operators.

In addition, the report will be of interest to those people conducting biological or botanical research into those two areas or into similar exotic species.

I also have great anticipation that the government will pay attention to the report and that the Minister of Natural Resources will review its recommendations and give effect to those recommendations, they being sound. Let me tell members something: The problem of zebra mussels did not start on 1 October. It has been around for some chunk of time. It is sad that previous governments never saw fit to deal with it. It fell to this government to conduct an investigation, prepare these recommendations, good recommendations --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: I move that unanimous consent be given to allow the honourable member to continue.

The Speaker: I suppose I should have put a little more stress on the word "brief" when I asked him if he had a brief statement. Has the Chair of the committee completed his brief statement?

On motion by Mr Kormos, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Mr Ramsay moved first reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

M. Ramsay propose la première lecture du projet de loi 113, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les mines.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Ramsay: As I had outlined in my member's statement earlier today, this is a friendly amendment to the new act that will be proclaimed early next week. That is

an act that was brought in by our government, and upon looking at the act, we see it is potentially in conflict with the Provincial Parks Act in that the new Mining Act, in defining what a mineral is, deletes sand and gravel from that definition. In the Provincial Parks Act, sand and gravel are included as minerals. Therefore what this act could allow is the excavation of sand and gravel in provincial parks.

I am sure that this government, and certainly the previous government, would not want to see this action take place. As there is some pressure at the moment to do some excavation of sand and gravel in Sleeping Giant Provincial Park in Thunder Bay, we feel this protection should be placed here now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with all of the health professions bills on second reading together as a package.

The Speaker: We require unanimous consent of the House to deal with certain bills all pertaining to the health professions.

Agreed to.

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES AUDIOLOGUES ET LES ORTHOPHONISTES

CHIROPODY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES

CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS

DENTAL HYGIENE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

DENTAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DENTAIRES

DENTISTRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTISTES

DENTURISM ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTUROLOGUES

DIETETICS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DIÉTÉTISTES

MASSAGE THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MASSOTHÉRAPEUTES

MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DE LABORATOIRE MÉDICAL

MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS EN RADIATION MÉDICALE

MEDICINE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MÉDECINS

MIDWIFERY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SAGES-FEMMES

NURSING ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ERGOTHÉRAPEUTES

OPTICIANRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTICIENS

OPTOMETRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTOMÉTRISTES

PHARMACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHARMACIENS

PHYSIOTHERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHYSIOTHÉRAPEUTES

PSYCHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PSYCHOLOGUES

RESPIRATORY THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INHALOTHÉRAPEUTES

Ms Lankin moved second reading of Bill 43,

An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions; Bill 44,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Professions of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; Bill 45,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropody; Bill 46,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropractic; Bill 47,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Hygiene; Bill 48,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Technology; Bill 49,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dentistry; Bill 50,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Denturism; Bill 51,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dietetics; Bill 52,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Massage Therapy; Bill 53,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Laboratory Technology; Bill 54,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Radiation Technology; Bill 55,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medicine; Bill 56,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Midwifery; Bill 57,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Nursing; Bill 58,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Occupational Therapy; Bill 59,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Opticianry; Bill 60,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Optometry; Bill 61,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Pharmacy; Bill 62,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Physiotherapy; Bill 63,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Psychology, and Bill 64,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Respiratory Therapy.

M me Lankin propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 43, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions de la santé et d'autres questions relatives aux professions de la santé ; projet de loi 44, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions d'audiologue et d'orthophoniste ; projet de loi 45, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de podologue ; projet de loi 46, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de chiropraticien ; projet de loi 47, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'hygiéniste dentaire ; projet de loi 48, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien dentaire ; projet de loi 49, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de dentiste ; projet de loi 50, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de denturologue ; projet de loi 51, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de diététiste ; projet de loi 52, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de massothérapeute ; projet de loi 53, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien de laboratoire médical ; projet de loi 54, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien en radiation médicale ; projet de loi 55, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de médecin ; projet de loi 56, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de sage-femme ; projet de loi 57, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'infirmière ou d'infirmier ; projet de loi 58, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'ergothérapeute ; projet de loi 59, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'opticien ; projet de loi 60, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'optométriste ; projet de loi 61, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de pharmacien ; projet de loi 62, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de physiothérapeute ; projet de loi 63, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de psychologue ; projet de loi 64, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'inhalothérapeute.

Hon Ms Lankin: I am moving second reading of Bill 43, which is

An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions, and also second reading of Bills 44 to 64, 21 acts respecting the regulation of 24 specific health professions.

Before I carry on, let me take a moment to pay tribute to the former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, for her role in introducing this on first reading. May I also take this moment to pay tribute to another former Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, who is here today, who also has played a role with respect to this.

May I say that there are probably other former ministers of Health, because in fact the legislative history of this piece of legislation spans three different political parties in government and many years of hard work on behalf of people out there in the community who care about this, people in the Legislature and people in the Ministry of Health, and the staff who are here today who have made a career out of this legislation and are hoping to bring it forward. We are very excited that for the very first time it has actually got to second reading. Let's hope this is an omen and we will be able to carry through.

With this legislation, the public will have a louder, clearer voice than ever before on how our health care system operates. Members of the public will work as partners with health care providers on discipline committee panels and governing councils and regulator colleges to assure Ontarians that the care they receive is of the best quality. I am looking forward to hearing the advice of lay people who will make up the new Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.

Health professionals also benefit from this legislation. The closer working relationship between themselves and the public will help to create an environment of understanding and trust between the two. It would appear the trust is in need of rebuilding.

Two days ago, the task force on sexual abuse of patients presented its preliminary report and recommendations to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The council has already carried out the first recommendation by confirming its commitment to the philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse. The Ministry of Health also has a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse, whether committed by a physician or any other care giver.

Over the coming weeks, we will be studying the task force's recommendations, some of which are addressed to the Ministry of Health and include suggestions for amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act and procedural code. We will be discussing these recommendations with the task force, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and with other groups. It is our goal to enact a law that will deter sexual abuse, bring abusers to justice and treat victims with greater sensitivity and respect.

The system of how we receive health service is on the verge of extraordinary change in the quality and the choice of services we receive. For the very first time, every regulated profession must have a program to ensure that its members are competent and provide quality care. We can also expect a wider choice of health care services. Eight health professions, all of them predominantly female, are being added to the current list of fully self-regulated professions.

For health professionals, this will mean opportunities to work on teams with other professionals they may never have worked with before and where all members are equally important to the task of keeping patients healthy. The new dialogue will result in learning and growing experiences for health professionals in a health care system that will serve the needs of Ontario's citizens better than ever before.

Among the new choices being offered consumers with this legislation is a choice in how childbirth is conducted. Those who want to be cared for by midwives during pregnancy, labour and delivery will have that option. The inclusion of midwives in this legislative package represents a change in policy direction set by the Ontario Legislature a little more than a century ago. It was in 1865 that midwives lost the exemption from the Medicine Act that had made it possible for them to practice midwifery without a licence to practice medicine.

The Midwifery Act included in this legislative package gives legal recognition to midwives. This reversal in policy is largely due to the efforts of hundreds of individual women and a smaller number of practising midwives who through public education, lobbying and education of other health professionals demonstrated the need and the consumer demand for midwives. Thanks to them, women will soon have the choice of obtaining care from a midwife, a choice available to women virtually everywhere except in Canada.

It should not have been so difficult for these women to bring about change, and it should not have taken so long. That it did take so long demonstrates the lack of input women and indeed the entire public have had in the health care system. People ought to have a say in the kind of health care they get and how health care is provided to them. With this legislation, which will make future policy-making flexible to change and be responsive to public opinion, it will be possible for their voices to be heard.

As the legislation continues through the legislative process, I would like to extend an invitation to the public and to professional groups in Ontario to take

part in the committee hearings that I will ask for after the House debate. I am particularly looking forward to hearing from interested members of the public, since over the years of this legislation's evolution most of the consultations with both my ministry and with previous ministers of Health have been dominated by professional groups. I will be asking the committee to make special efforts to hear from those consumers who wish to make their submissions.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of this important series of bills, and I would just take a moment to congratulate, as well as the minister, all the people who have been involved in getting it to this stage. I think, if I am not mistaken, that eight ministers of Health over three different series of administrations have been involved. I hope the House will not mind if I particularly recognize my colleague the member for Oriole in that this is, as I think we will find out when we get to the public hearings, not an easy matter, for a couple of reasons.

One is that this issue is extremely important and people care deeply about it, and second, the various professions have a very major stake in how this legislation is in the final analysis crafted and enacted.

I particularly want to recognize my colleague, the former minister and the member for Oriole, in that I know to get to this stage required an enormous amount of work, balancing a variety of interests. The bills were introduced for first reading almost exactly a year ago; I think it was 6 June that the previous legislation, which is very similar to what we see before us, was introduced. I know how much effort was involved in getting it there, but I also want to congratulate all the Ministry of Health staff and the various health professionals who have helped shape it to the position it is in now.

As I say, we will find this an extremely important series of bills. It will in a very major way bring the health services into this century, and hopefully will give us a foundation for the next century. It is fair to say that it will indeed provide the public with a substantially improved measure of protection. I think the establishment of the new colleges in a more open process for public participation will prove to be extremely important and also will enhance public protection.

Also, it is clear to everyone who looks at the health field now that the way health will be delivered in the years ahead is very different than we have seen in the past. There are competent, professional health givers out there who need what this will provide: regulations, the scope of practice, and necessary

definitions of quality of service and the areas that they can and cannot practise in.

When we look at the series of health providers, these acts will now regulate 24 different professions, each of which provides valuable and important service. This is an important step forward in backing up what all of us believe in, that community-based health care is going to be a cornerstone of our effective health care system in the future.

Health care should not be a dollar-and-cents issue, but none the less I am quick to recognize that our health budget is under stress and strain. The ministers and all of us know it now occupies a third of our provincial budget. It has been growing far more rapidly than the rest of the budget, and that pressure is not going to ease in the years ahead. By the regulation of a broader scope of professions, it will be helpful in managing our health care system.

There can be no mistake that these bills are extremely important for the future health care in the province, and therefore we are pleased that we now have them before us for second reading.

We in the official opposition look forward to a quite extensive debate at the committee stage. As the minister quite correctly pointed out, the public to a very large extent has not been involved in this as yet. We have not heard from consumers, the public, who after all have a stake in this. Indeed, we have not necessarily heard from the rank and file of the health professions. We have heard from the leadership of the health professions, but I think it is important that we hear in committee from the rank and file.

Each of the members in the Legislature, and certainly those members on the committee, will find that while there is no question there is broad support for proceeding with this, we all are going to be inundated -- and I think that may be an understatement -- with each profession having some suggestions for improvement, and they will be strongly felt because the members will find that each profession believes -- thank goodness they believe this -- that it is perhaps best able to deal with certain areas and that therefore its scope should be enhanced or expanded.

Make no mistake, we have now reached another stage in this process. But in many respects the hard work will begin, because it will be up to the members on that committee to sift through the various proposals that will come before it, to sort out in the end what makes the most sense for the health of this province and to try and shape the final recommendations that will come back to this House.

It is obvious as well that there will be some unregulated groups who have some concerns. The committee will find that many of the clergy and social workers in the province have already expressed some concerns. It is going to be important for the committee to listen to those concerns and to ensure that particularly those two groups are comforted with the final bills. Certainly it was the feeling when we looked at the diagnostic

section that the clergy and the social workers should not be apprehensive of it. But having said that, they still are. So one of the jobs of the committee will be to listen to those extremely important groups and find a way that they are able to feel comfort with the final product of this work.

We will also find that on the other side are some fairly strongly held feelings that what was called the harm provision, which the minister has indicated it is not her intention to proceed with, causes some of the professions some considerable concern as well, the removal of that harm provision. The minister of the day in her remarks, not today but introducing this at first reading, indicated that it was her feeling that the harm provision was not necessary. That, as the minister will know, is not necessarily shared by everyone.

So at the committee we will be looking to ensure that if the harm provision is not there, there are the necessary safeguards for some of the professions that worry about individuals practising in areas they are not competent to practise in.

The areas I wanted to cover I have perhaps covered now that there is no question that there is broad support for this legislation. There is no question that it is extremely important and that once properly framed and amended as we work our way through it, it will be an extremely important set of laws to guide our health care system in the future.

There is no question that many of the new professions that are going to be regulated under this should be regulated and will benefit from it. The minister mentioned in her remarks that midwives will be regulated. But in addition, I think there are six other groups that previously were not regulated that will be: the dental hygienists, the dietitians, midwives, as I said, occupational therapists, audiologists and speech-language people, and respiratory technologists.

In addition, we will have for the first time a common set of regulations involving all of the professions. We will have much more broadly publicly based participation in the colleges, which is important. We will have, as I say, a common set of guidelines for each of these professions, and a recognition that there is not a hierarchy of professions. Each of these 24 professions plays an equally important role, some larger than others, some occupying a larger part of the health care budget than others, but each in its own way plays an equally important role.

Therefore, I am looking forward to this heading to the public hearings over the summer months. I hope the committee would also find a way to be travelling the province, to not just focus these hearings in Toronto, because when these laws are finally passed it will, believe me, deeply impact people right across the province.

As the minister said in her opening remarks, I think we have only to look at the report that was presented this week to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to see the importance these colleges will play in the future, to see the importance of opening the colleges up to a more public participation and a more public scrutiny.

As I said earlier, we should and we will anticipate an awful lot of input from the various groups. The members should also anticipate that some of the groups that were not proposed for regulation perhaps will still be looking for that, and that is understandable. The minister in her announcement at first reading dealt with the naturopaths, and that was probably the right move, to have that group looked at and to have the new health professions committee look at how and when those could be regulated. But there will be other groups as well that will no doubt be appearing before the committee.

We are fortunate in the amount of work that has already been done in looking at this area. As I say, I think we have now been eight years at it. Mr Schwartz, I believe, did an awful lot of the legwork along with a large input from various staff and various public.

We are now at the stage where we take it to the public, where we can now move it into the field where the consumers can at last have their say in it. So on behalf of the official opposition I look forward to a very lively debate at committee -- I think that is the logical place for it to take place -- a good exchange and an opportunity to improve the bill, because I can almost guarantee it is not perfect and there are opportunities for improvement. It will be a lot of work, because every group has a major stake in it professionally and in terms of the role they want to play in the future health care of the province.

Having said all of that, it has to be one of the more important things we will deal with. If there is one thing that sets Ontario and indeed Canada apart, it is the quality of our health care system, as all of us know and appreciate. This will provide a very important improvement in the health care of the province. I look forward to seeing this approved at second reading and moving on to the committee stage.

Mr Eves: It is my pleasure on behalf of our party to rise and participate in the second reading debate on what I still -- I guess I have been around here too long -- refer to as HPLR legislation.

We have supported the regulation of health care professionals and this approach for some period of time; since 1982 to be exact. I think the point the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes is very well received, that of course the ultimate factor or principle we have to be guided by in terms of this legislation is protection for the public as well as regulation of health care professionals. We obviously have to have some pretty full and deliberate public consultation after second reading of these numerous pieces of legislation to achieve our goal.

It was the Davis government, of course, that introduced the health professions legislation review in 1982. Alan Schwartz was appointed at that point in time to examine Ontario's health care professions legislation and to recommend a new regulatory system which would provide better protection to consumers or to the public, allow consumers more choice from a larger range of health care options that are out there in today's world, and also encourage the most use of the skills that health care providers have and of health resources in the province. I think the comments that have been made both by the minister and by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt have struck on those factors.

The recommendations of the review called Striking A New Balance: A Blueprint for Regulation of Ontario's Health Care Professions were released in January 1989. As the minister has said, I believe, the current statutory regulatory patchwork is certainly not a very consistent set of circumstances at all. Of the 18 health professions that are now regulated by statute, five are governed by a 1925 statute, the Drugless Practitioners Act, six by the Health Disciplines Act, and seven by six different individual statutes dating as far back as 1944, hardly, I think, what we would consider a very satisfactory state of affairs in the health care system in the province today in 1991.

I think that, of course, now we have reached the stage of our deliberations where it is time that the public receive the opportunity to exercise a freedom of choice within the health care system that has a range of safe options for all members of the public. We certainly are interested in working together with the other two parties in the Legislature and interested parties from various health care professions and members of the public through the committee process to ensure that the legislation meets the goal we want it to meet.

I think it might be a little helpful if we talked a little bit about the patchwork system that exists today, how we got to where we are, and hopefully where we want to go and how we want to get there.

As I said, currently eight different statutes regulate 18 health care professions. This new legislation will bring forward 24 health care professions into a uniform regulatory system, including seven professions that are currently unregulated: audiologists, dietitians, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, occupational therapists, respiratory technologists and speech-language pathologists. Four, as I have indicated, are regulated by the Drugless Practitioners Act of 1925: chiropractors, massage therapists, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Seven are now regulated by individual statutes and there are six that are currently regulated by the Health Disciplines Act.

Under the new legislation it is proposed that each profession will have a college which will govern the profession in accordance with its health professionals' act and the health professions procedural code. The bill provides that potentially harmful health care activities, known as controlled acts, may only be performed by appropriate, regulated health care professionals. The controlled acts are set out in, I believe, subsection 26(2) of the legislation.

There are some exceptions to the controlled acts that are set out, and further exceptions can be prescribed by regulation. The act restricts the use of the title "doctor" in the course of providing health care, to chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, physicians and psychologists. Controlled acts that each health care profession is authorized to perform are set out in the Health Professions Act. There are 13 categories of controlled acts.

The act establishes a Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council to provide advice to the Minister of Health on matters concerning the regulation of any health profession. The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council will be composed of persons who are not health professionals. The Health Disciplines Board is to be continued as the Health Professions Board with an expanded membership.

Procedural code is set out by schedule. It contains the main structural and procedural elements of the regulatory system, including registration, complaints, discipline and incapacity procedures in college bylaw and regulation making authority. The procedural code requires the council of every regulatory college to establish a quality assurance program within three years of proclamation of each health professional act.

The bill is accompanied by 22 individual acts covering health professions to be regulated. Some are grouped together under one piece of legislation. These acts, as proposed, outline but do not license the profession's scope of practice, its authorized controlled acts and composition of its councils and committees.

As I indicated, the current statutory patchwork offers no uniform system of regulatory control and is difficult, at best, to update. There has been considerable pressure to change the existing regulatory framework, both from members of the public who lack confidence in the current complaints and disciplinary processes and from regulated and unregulated professions which realize that the system is awkward, at best.

In 1982 the health professions legislation review was created to examine Ontario's health care professions legislation and to recommend a new regulatory system which would provide better protection of the public and consumers, allow consumers more choice from a larger range of safe health care options, and encourage efficient use.

The following criteria were used to select the professions which were to be regulated, and this is still a subject matter of some contention out there. I believe there were 75 groups, if my memory serves me correctly, which sought to be recognized as health care professional groups, and only some 24 are being brought in under this umbrella legislation that we are talking about today. I am sure we will hear from some of the others during the course of our committee deliberations because we have heard from them for some months if not years now in some cases. I can speak from personal experience about that.

The following criteria were used to select professions to be regulated, and I think perhaps it is important that some of these groups out there and members of the public understand this:

(1) Responsibility for the profession falls within the mandate of the Ministry of Health; (2) regulation is necessary because the profession's activities pose a risk of harm to patients, the profession's members are not supervised by another regulated profession, or there is no other mechanism to regulate the profession; (3) the profession has a body of knowledge that can form the basis for standards of practice; and (4) the profession is able to regulate itself, in that its leaders are able to favour public interest over professional self-interest, its members will comply with professional standards and rules, and its members are willing to bear the cost of self-regulation.

The previous government introduced this act and accompanying pieces of legislation into the Legislative Assembly on 6 June 1990, as has been stated by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. The most noticeable difference between the health professions legislation introduced by the current government and that by the former government, I think it is fair to say, is the title. The Health Professions Regulation Act, as it was referred to by the previous government, is now called the Regulated Health Professions Act by the current government.

The former Minister of Health claimed that amendments would be enacted to increase public membership on governing councils when the legislation was introduced. One question I have is why these feature amendments were not included in the legislation that is being tabled here this afternoon, seeing that obviously the government decided some weeks if not months ago that that was going to be its intention.

The only other question I have, I would say at the outset, about the legislation is why the government has not taken the initiative to include naturopaths in this legislation being tabled today. There was some talk about this under the previous government and it just was not ready to proceed, but we are here now today one year later almost to the day, within a week of one year later, from when this legislation was introduced by the former government, and I would have thought that one year would have been more than enough time to include naturopaths in the legislation.

As it stands now, the advisory council will give advice on its scope of practice and any controlled acts after the legislation is passed.

Another aspect that I do not think we have really touched upon is the financial impact of the legislation. While that is certainly not first and foremost with respect to provision of health care in the province, it is at least a concern. So far I have not seen any estimates as to what it is going to cost to implement the legislation.

The advisory council is apparently going to be a continuous committee, and we would ask that the government provide the Legislature with details as to what this continuous committee activity is going to cost and whether or not indeed it is going to be necessary for the committee to be continuous. It is also going to incur some costs, of course, with respect to those professions, to establish regulatory colleges along with regulation complaints, discipline and incapacity procedures.

We look forward to working with all interested groups throughout the committee process to hear any concerns with respect to this very significant legislation. A number of groups have already expressed concern with the controlled acts, in that some are not listed in enough detail.

There are still a number of so-called turf battles going on that are causing health care providers considerable concern, not to mention members of the public. A number of unregulated practitioners have raised a number of points over the past year, and valid points, I think. They are not certain that the legislation is not intended to prevent alternative and unregulated health providers from practising, so I think we have to address those matters, and I am sure that we will be able to do that during the committee process.

There were two particular clauses, as I can recall, that these health care providers, some of whom have formed a coalition of unregulated practitioners, had some problems with, as I understand it. One was the harm clause, which was talked about. To be fair to the government and to be fair to the minister and the people in the Ministry of Health, I think that some of these unregulated practitioners have changed their minds a couple of times with respect to the harm clause. Initially there was some pressure brought to bear that the harm clause be removed. That has been done.

Now there is some pressure being brought to bear, because I think they have sought legal advice in some cases and seem to be getting input back that without a harm clause they may be worse off legally than they would have been with a harm clause, and perhaps they would like to see a restructured harm clause reinserted in the act, if anybody can dream up valid enough and practical enough and legal enough wording --

Ms Gigantes: Good luck.

Mr Eves: One former minister says "No one," and I am sure that --

Ms Gigantes: I said "Good luck."

Mr Eves: Good luck. That is almost the same thing, and that may well be the case.

The other clause is the diagnostic or diagnosis clause, and this coalition of unregulated practitioners has at least talked to me -- and I am sure that they have expr