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

April 18, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L060 - Thu 18 Apr 1996 / Jeu 18 Avr 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CANCER PREVENTION

PAROLE SYSTEM

CANCER PREVENTION

PAROLE SYSTEM

CANCER PREVENTION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

NORTHERN ECONOMY

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE

SCIENCE NORTH

CROWN LAND CAMPING FEES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPS D'ÉLITE ONTARIO AWARDS

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER AND MINISTERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S RIDING ASSOCIATION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

PREMIER'S RIDING ASSOCIATION

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

GASOLINE PRICES

MINISTER'S RIDING ASSOCIATION

WOMEN'S ISSUES

RENT REGULATION

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

NUCLEAR SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

VARITY CORP

PETITIONS

TRANSITION HOUSE

BEAR HUNTING

PUBLIC SERVICES

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

TAX REDUCTION

TRANSITION HOUSE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

TAX REDUCTION

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF MILTON ACT, 1996

ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ROAD SUPERINTENDENTS ACT, 1996

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED GRAPHIC DESIGNERS OF ONTARIO ACT, 1996

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

COMMITTEE REPORT

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MPPS PENSION AND COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉTRIBUTION ET DU RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES DÉPUTÉS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Churley moved private member's notice of motion number 13:

That in the opinion of this House, since cancer is one of the leading causes of premature death in Ontario, claiming more than 20,000 lives annually, and since Ontario currently spends in excess of $1 billion a year on cancer treatment, and since the previous New Democratic Party government recognized this dire threat and commissioned a task force to advise on ways to effectively stem the rising incidence of this disease, and since the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer tabled its report in March 1995, advising the government on an action-based plan for the primary prevention of cancer and the present Conservative government has yet to respond,

Therefore, in order to protect human health, prevent cancer and benefit natural ecosystems, this House calls upon the government of Ontario to (

a) immediately appoint a working committee consisting of environmental, health, labour, industry, women's, aboriginal and other interested groups; and (

b) work with the committee to establish realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens as outlined in the report of the task force.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Every year in Ontario over 20,000 people die of cancer and many others are diagnosed with cancer. We spend over $1 billion fighting this disease, and of course there are untold social costs, indirect costs and tremendous human suffering. While it is true that we continue to make progress in research in fighting cancer, the incidence of cancer continues to rise. Obviously the time has come to put a greater emphasis on prevention, and that is why I have this resolution before you today.

This is an issue that should be and I hope today is outside the realm of ideology and partisan politics. I doubt there is anybody in this room who has not been touched by cancer, whether a friend, a loved one, or we have battled it ourselves. The good news is that there is a growing body of evidence that some cancers can be prevented.

That is why in February 1994, the former Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, who I'm happy to say is here today in the gallery, appointed a task force on the primary prevention of cancer. The task force was chaired by Anthony Miller, and he submitted this report to the minister a year later, in 1995. The report is comprehensive and makes many challenging recommendations.

A great many of the recommendations are what we call lifestyle changes: tobacco, alcohol, exercise. These are areas where we can make some choices. That is not to say, however, that I don't support all of the recommendations, and in fact I would urge the government to act on them. But today I am going to concentrate on one of the recommendations which required direct, and in my view urgent, action on this government's part. After all, we have no choice in drinking water, eating food and breathing air. So I am asking the government to take immediate steps to stem the tide of these environmental carcinogens in our environment.

Mr Speaker, you may be surprised to know that there are over 70,000 artificial chemicals that we have allowed into our environment, and we have no idea how most of these chemicals react. In October 1993, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy released primary and secondary lists of candidate substances for bans, phase-outs or reductions, and other lists by other bodies have been submitted to the public on this same area.

Obviously it's not possible to remove a persistent toxic substance from its source once it's there, so the focus has to be on preventing the use and production and generation of these substances in the first place. As this report points out, certain classes of persistent toxic chemicals are of particular concern, and one of these classes which we are hearing about these days is organochlorines, which include such chemicals as DDT, PCBs and dioxin.

Organochlorines have been found to act as tumour promoters, and there is growing evidence that some of these substances can mimic the effects of estrogens on cells and are likely causing birth defects and reproductive problems that could have very serious long-term effects on the reproductive abilities of future generations.

Dr Theo Colburn, author and scientific adviser to the World Wildlife Fund and coordinator of the distinguished Wingspread conferences, which brought together scientists from all over the world to discuss findings of human health and wildlife health problems and other dysfunctions caused by these hormone-mimicking chemicals, has recently written a book on this subject entitled Our Stolen Future, and I recommend that everybody read it. This is the most important book, I believe, written in this area since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring 35 years ago.

Dr Colburn's and other scientists' findings are indeed extremely alarming. For instance, they are certain that human male sperm count is rapidly decreasing in the industrial world. Four European studies in the past 10 years have concluded that there has been a 50% decline worldwide over the past 50 years. That's the problem with all of this stuff. We're just starting to see some very scary trends now, and obviously much more research has to be done.

The meeting of scientists, which I mentioned earlier, declared at the conclusion of their conference the following:

"We are certain of the following: A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. We estimate with confidence that, unless the environmental load of synthetic hormone disruptors is abated and controlled, large-scale dysfunction at the population level is possible."

Bioaccumulative substances move up the food chain, and breast-feeding of course is at the top of that food chain. When we have stories of dioxin in mothers' milk then we know we have a very serious problem.

I'm going to single out dioxin for a minute, because this government has repealed the NDP's ban on solid waste incineration in Ontario. That is a very serious problem, because dioxin is probably the most powerful carcinogen known to mankind. New data suggest that there is no safe limit. To put it in perspective, one eye-dropper of dioxin can contaminate 600 tanker cars of water, so I urge the government to rethink that policy.

It is estimated that only 5% of breast cancer is genetic; the other 95% is caused by external factors. The rate of breast cancer continues to rise about 1% a year, and scientists just don't know why it's happening in two out of three women. There is no doubt that cancer is a complicated disease and there are many varied causes, but if reducing and eventually eliminating exposures to xenoestrogens can reduce only 20% of breast cancers, think of how many women's lives can be saved.

We know also that prostate cancer continues to rise, and the incidence is higher the nearer the victim lives to industry. Testicular cancer has tripled since the 1950s in Denmark, and significant increases have been reported in studies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the US.

There is no doubt that much more research has to be done, but we cannot be lulled into passivity and do nothing until we have absolute proof. We may not get that for many generations. We can't use the traditional risk assessment that we've used for cancer in the past. We have to look at the weight of evidence somewhat in the same way the court system works.

I want to mention today before I close -- it's very difficult to say all you want to say on such a complicated subject -- there is in the gallery, as I mentioned, Ruth Grier, former health minister who commissioned the studies; and Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, who is involved with Women and Environments Education and Development Foundation, is here; and as well Van MacDonald, who works with the Women's Network on Health and the Environment. They are very interested, and I know would certainly offer their services to work with this government, should they choose to support my motion today.

I would urge all members, when you're asking yourselves today whether you will support this resolution, ask yourselves what are the costs to future generations if we don't act now. There are two kinds of deficits. This government talks a lot about monetary deficits. Well, there can be a much more serious deficit that we can leave to our children and our grandchildren. I would ask the government members, and all members of the House, to please show some real common sense today and support my resolution. Show some leadership to put together this working committee.

I know there are many, many bodies and people out there who would be willing to work with the government to come up with realistic and measurable timetables to sunsetting these persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens, as outlined in the report of the task force.

I want to single out briefly the city of Toronto council which has set a real example as a municipal body, which has already started to do work on this and have its own resolutions. I would like to see our government here in Ontario take leadership in this area.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Speaker would like to recognize in the west gallery the honourable Ruth Grier, former member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I'm very pleased this morning to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution. Cancer is something that all of us can agree has touched nearly everyone in this House. I think we all take very seriously the battle against cancer and the risks associated with environmental contaminants. This issue affects us in many ways. Health and safety, our environment and our food chain are among the most important.

In March 1995, the Ministry of Health released the report of the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer. This task force included consumers and experts in health promotion, public education, research, nutrition, and occupational and environmental health. The task force report was an important step towards identifying concerns and proposing solutions, but the task force would not have accomplished anything if these proposals were not acted on.

Fortunately, Mr Speaker, there has been much action on the recommendations of the task force report, and I am pleased to tell you that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has been at the forefront.

The report identified tobacco use and improper diet as two major causes of cancer in Ontario. OMAFRA is working in cooperation with the Ministry of Health on tobacco and dietary issues.

The report undertook an extensive review of environmental concerns and their impact on cancer as well. The impact of the environment on the incidence of cancer in Ontario was thought to be less than 5%. As a result, the Ministry of Health allowed the Ministry of Environment and Energy and OMAFRA to take the lead on these issues, and OMAFRA has taken up that challenge. OMAFRA has initiated a number of highly successful programs aimed at reducing total pesticide use in our province while maintaining a safe food supply and a healthy environment.

As well, there are a number of committees and a special panel which are in place working on issues identified in the report. Under the Canada-Ontario agreement, for example, a committee comprised of senior government representatives from the federal and provincial ministries of health, environment and agriculture is working on establishing realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting persistent and bioaccumulative agricultural chemicals.

OMAFRA, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines are all signatories to this agreement on the Great Lakes basin ecosystems.

As well, the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute of Canada have convened a special ad hoc panel to look at the general population risk associated with exposure to agricultural pesticides. We welcome this report, which is expected later this year, in the summer of 1996.

In 1988, as the member for Riverdale is no doubt aware, the government introduced the Ontario Food Systems 2002 program. The goal of Food Systems 2002 was to reduce pesticide use in Ontario by 50% over 15 years. In the past five years this program has contributed over $10 million to reduce dependence on pesticides in Ontario through research, education and technology transfer. As well, over $4 million has been provided for competitive research at a number of institutions.

Under the Ontario pesticide education program, over 53,000 Ontario growers have participated in grower-requested mandatory education programs. The Ontario task force report called for the development and application of alternative, non-chemical pest control measures.

OMAFRA has been a world leader in the development of an integrated pest management system. In fact, 22 integrated pest management programs have been developed for Ontario commodities, including fruits, vegetables and field and greenhouse crops, and we have seen a 13% reduction in pesticide use in just the last five years.

OMAFRA is involved with many other programs, including Ontario environmental farm plans, the Ontario enhanced food quality and safety program, the Ontario pesticide container recycling program, the forestry pesticide vegetation management program, the orphan pesticide collection program and the urban pesticide reduction initiative. All of the programs and safeguards that I have mentioned guarantee the consumers of Ontario the highest quality of food, from the time of planting in the field until it reaches their kitchen table.

Rather than supporting another committee which would revisit and duplicate existing studies, our government's efforts will be directed at continued improvements to the many fine programs already in place. This government understands the importance of quality human health and will continue to provide the practical measures to protect it.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It's my pleasure today to speak in favour of this resolution. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague the member for Riverdale for raising this important issue and introducing it as a subject of debate, and I certainly hope that government members will treat it with the respect and the non-partisan nature with which it was presented to the House.

Just as a preliminary comment, it seems to me that a modern government, in addressing any issue before it, ought to be considering at all times three imperatives: One is the economic, two is the social, and third ought to be the environmental. It seems to me this government fails to recognize the importance of always giving value to those three concerns. We have an opportunity here now to inject an environmental concern into some of the things this government is considering and we're offering an opportunity for it to express its concern, for not only our natural environment but obviously the health of Ontarians.

This is a report with which I was unfamiliar -- I'll be honest about that -- until I attended a meeting some time ago with the member for Riverdale, at which time somebody raised it. I've since had the opportunity to look at it, and like too many reports that we produce through committees of one sort or another by way of the workings of this Legislature, it goes unread and it's never had the life of law breathed into it. We have an opportunity before us.

It's a very good report, and one particular aspect raised by the member for Riverdale obviously deals with the effects of environmental carcinogens, or cancer-causing agents, that are found in our environment. This report specifically recommends that we set realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting particular toxic substances, and there's a couple of them in particular here that are referred to that I want to address and bring to the members' attention.

There are some carcinogens, or suspected carcinogens, that have been listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and this report of the committee that took it upon itself to study these has suggested that we sunset their use. Those include the following, something called group 2A, probable human carcinogens: ethylene oxide, which is found in insecticides and fungicides; formaldehyde; and creosote, a wood preservative.

It also lists carcinogens under group 2B as possible human carcinogens, including: amitrole, which is a herbicide; atrazine, another herbicide; dichlorovos, an insecticide; hexachlorocyclohexane; and a variety of others, including wood preservatives and anti-microbials.

The good news for us is that we have the information before us today, and as such, we are no longer relieved of the responsibility to take action in order to address these concerns that have been raised and thereby take some steps forward to improve the natural environment and, as I say, in a more direct sense to address health concerns.

One of the things this report also touched on was the importance of decreasing emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks and motorcycles.

I'm a bit frustrated with respect to one particular item. I have raised it in this House on a number of occasions now. At one point in time the city of Toronto took it upon itself to determine that it had some low-level smog problems and that these were creating health problems for the people who were living in Toronto, so it approached this government with a view to obtaining permission to put in place a bylaw which would limit the amount of time stationary vehicles could idle. They weren't looking for any money; they were merely looking for permission to take action to protect the health of their citizenry, of the people who happen to live in Toronto or happen to be passing through it.

This government, for reasons which are beyond my understanding, decided it would not grant that permission to the good people of the city of Toronto. I think that unfortunately speaks all too clearly as to their commitment to the natural environment.

On that note, I am prepared to admit that the environment is not what you would call a top-of-mind issue today in this province. If you knock on doors, people will more likely tell you about their concerns relating to jobs and the economy, and that's quite understandable. Notwithstanding that, polls consistently tell us that the people in this province expect their government to continue to take steps to build upon the 30 years that have gone before us by successive governments to weave together a safety net of laws which give protection to our environment.

I think, as legislators in this province, when we're presented with this more pressing need that people raise on a regular basis relating to jobs and the economy, we have a responsibility to keep in mind those three imperatives I talked about at the outset: the social, the economic, as well as the environmental.

This is a specific way, which has been raised by the member for Riverdale, that this government can, at little if any cost, strike a committee that would consist of those who have some connection with this issue and who could then work to establish those kinds of timetables to sunset chemicals and suspected carcinogens which are right now having their effect on the people of this province. It's not an expensive recommendation or undertaking; it is hardly cumbersome; it's not overly intricate or complicated. In fact, it's something that's eminently doable.

Something else this government ought to be considering with respect to environmental concerns is that it ought to be giving real thought to putting in place mandatory vehicle inspection so that we can begin to address in a very real way the damages caused by car and truck emissions into the air of this province. We have, as many members will recognize, some of the higher readings, some of the most difficulty with low-level smog in the country here in southern Ontario. We have had an understanding of the cause of this problem for a very long time and we are now presented with the responsibility to take some steps.

The province of British Columbia has had on its books for some time now legislation which requires that people who drive cars attend for vehicle inspection. It's not an overly complicated system. There's a certain cost associated with that, admittedly, but at the end of the day we owe it not only to ourselves but to future generations to do what we can while we can, and given the information we presently have, to take steps to protect our natural environment.

To conclude, I am pleased to offer my support to the member for Riverdale for an eminently reasonable, non-partisan and workable resolution, and I trust the government members will treat it with the respect it deserves and agree to support it.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm delighted to be participating in the debate on this resolution today and to support the efforts of my colleague from Riverdale on what I think is a very important issue, for a resolution that I think is a very practical option for all of us as legislators to pursue in recommending to the government.

I must say in beginning my remarks that I listened carefully to the member for Hastings-Peterborough and I'm quite concerned with what I heard. With all due respect, I have to say that I think it represented an approach which is a tunnel-vision approach to how we deal with these very important and complex health issues; in fact, how imperative it is for us to understand the interrelationship of much of what occurs in our life and its impact on our health. You cannot approach issues of health promotion, of wellbeing, with a very narrow focus on operations of individual ministries or programs or whatever.

I heard you list a number of very positive initiatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which you say should contribute to control of toxic substances and therefore to the goal of preventing preventable cancers, but those programs were all in place at the time in which the task force which was called together to look seriously at prevention of cancer undertook its work. We were aware of all of that and that was part of what had been viewed, and still there is a need for a much broader coordination.

One of the things I hope this government comes to understand is that our health care system, as fine as it is and as much as we want to contribute to wellbeing through the health care system -- you must come to an understanding that the things that determine our health status as a population often lie outside of hospitals and doctors and treatments. It's where we get our source of health in the first place. It's the things that determine our health. It's our environment. It's our housing. It's our income distribution. It's nutrition. It's a whole range of other things.

The previous government adopted a framework of looking at determinants of health and understanding through the operations of all aspects of government, through the operations, the programs, how that contributed to making Ontarians more healthy.

Your health minister has certainly mouthed the words that he supports it and we'll see if it comes true in action. But we also understood that within the envelope of what's defined as health care spending there needed to be major reform and that the focus had to be shifted from simply paying out more and more money on illness treatment at the end of the system to more being invested at the beginning of the system; that is, in keeping people healthy in the first place, in illness prevention, in health promotion. That was what the work of the task force was all about.

Within the Ministry of Health there was a recognition that cancer is a major, major challenge for the health status of the public. Twenty thousand people a year in Ontario die from cancer. We spend $1 billion a year in this province treating that cancer.

We understood as a government and for the first time brought people together to start to look at how we prevent cancer, to develop a comprehensive cancer strategy. Out of those discussions, former Minister of Health Ruth Grier established the task force which led to this report, a report with practical, concrete suggestions about taking steps to prevent cancer.

How can you disagree with that? How can you say this resolution is simply about another committee? It's about bringing people together across a range of interests in this province to enact recommendations from this task force, to talk about what are the reasonable levels and limits and time frames we can put in place to phase out the use of toxic substances in many different industrial settings and farm settings and other settings.

That is a worthwhile goal and you need the coordination across ministries. It's not simply an issue of the Ministry of Environment and Energy or the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. That kind of tunnel vision is not going to get us to the solutions we need. We have to work together across efforts within government, across efforts within our society. Surely, the goal of preventing the kind of carnage we see in this province from death from cancer is worth proceeding with what were well-founded recommendations from a non-partisan task force attempting to achieve that goal of preventing cancer.

This is an incredibly important issue and I can tell you, as someone who has done a lot of work over the years with women who have survived, and some of my friends who have not survived, breast cancer, 95% of breast cancer cases cannot be traced to genetic predisposition. It's external environmental factors. We can do something about this. This is a leading killer of women. There are recommendations that very wise people who worked on this task force have pulled together, and this resolution simply takes the recommendations and says: "It's been a year this has been sitting there. We want you to act on it."

All of us, as legislators, want the government to work with a committee to establish reasonable time frames, to establish limits and to establish the phase-out of certain toxic substances. I don't know how there could be disagreement with that. I find it amazing to hear suggestions that this would simply be another committee.

I want to say to you in closing, because I want to leave time for the member for Riverdale to wrap up in this debate, that in the area of health care it is the one area where in this House we should be able to put aside partisan differences. We should be able to understand and agree on the goal.

We should be able to look to the volume of work that has been done that says that to preserve our medicare system, our health care system, we must move to invest in the front end of the system, in the promotion of health, in the prevention of illness. We must take the time and we must think through the strategies to get to a point where we're not spending $1 billion a year on treating cancer, through to the point of 20,000 people a year dying, but where we spend some time and energy at the beginning to try to prevent people from contracting cancer.

That's what this resolution is about. This is not a cost to the government. This is not an imposition on your Common Sense Revolution in any way. This is simply enacting the advice of people who spent a great deal of time and effort coming together from across the broad expertise of the public and the health care system to recommend to government the next steps to take on a prevention strategy.

It's amazing it had never been done in the province of Ontario before, it's amazing we had never looked at how do we prevent cancer, but we hadn't. Ruth Grier brought that task force together; that task force reported; there are concrete recommendations. These are only two of the recommendations that the member for Riverdale has put before this House today.

I urge members here to support the resolution. It's simply, when passed, an urging on the part of legislators who care about the future health of the public of Ontario, an urging to the Minister of Health and to the government to proceed in a very commonsense way in enacting the strategy to prevent cancer. I hope you will support the members' resolution. I think it is deserving of your support. I think the public would like to see this kind of strategy be enacted.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to speak a few words with respect to the resolution put forward by Ms Churley, the member for Riverdale. The topic of cancer is something that I think all three parties are most concerned with, whether you go back to the Liberal administration, or certainly your administration -- and it's quite appropriate that the former minister, Mrs Grier, is in the House. It was quite obvious I didn't always agree with many of her policies, but certainly I supported her position on Bill 119, the tobacco bill. This was one of the concerns of your government.

We can all tell stories of how cancer has affected us personally, whether it's friends or members of our own family. There was a member of your cabinet, a former colleague of yours, who obviously had grave problems. Cancer is indeed a serious problem, and whatever party is sitting on this side should be taking whatever steps are needed to deal with it. I support you in bringing the issue forward.

The task force report you have referred to in your resolution came out in March of last year. In the introduction it refers to some of the facts you talk about, talking about cancer as being "one of the leading causes of mortality in Ontario, accounting for over 20,000 deaths per year. Approximately 27% of all deaths in Ontario are attributable to cancer." There's no question we all support the issue of a government doing something. Whether it be a federal government, whether it be a provincial government, whether it be an international government -- the government of the United States, for example -- we are all concerned with this topic.

In the executive

summary, the task force stated: "In recognition of the importance of preventive measures for reducing the cancer burden in Ontario, a Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer was appointed by the Ontario Minister of Health in February 1994. The purpose of the task force was to advise the minister with respect to the development of an action-based, effective and feasible plan detailing recommendations for the primary prevention of cancer." Indeed, the report goes through and spends considerable time on these issues.

The member for Riverdale has mentioned the fact that there is no 100% proof that these are the causes of cancer. That is referred to in the report at page 34, where it talks about the known or suspected environmental carcinogens: "To prevent the further generation of environmental toxins, bans on production and imports are necessary, but are not sufficient on their own as these substances can enter the Canadian environment from elsewhere." There's no question that does happen. These things are everywhere; they're in the air, they're in the food, they're in the soil. Obviously, we need to look at those things.

But we must be very careful about how we go about it. I guess that is the difference between our party and your party: We may agree philosophically on certain things; it's how you go about dealing with them.

The Ministry of Health, as one of the earlier speakers has mentioned, has currently undertaken a number of cancer initiatives in the area of prevention, detection and treatment of cancer in the province of Ontario.

It's been mentioned that there's the tobacco strategy, which your government spent a considerable amount of time on, which seeks to reduce tobacco use, especially among young people, because tobacco is certainly the primary preventable cause of cancer in the province; the prevention of early childhood cancer; early detection programs like the Ontario breast screening program and a pilot cervical cancer screening program; treatment centres like the London Regional Cancer Centre and the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre.

A transitional team is looking at cancer care in Ontario and is expected to make its report to the provincial government in June of this year.

I think we all can stand in our place and support the member philosophically as to the need to take whatever initiatives are required to rid ourselves of this dreaded disease. The problem I have with your resolution is creating another level of added bureaucracy. All of the things you're -- well, you shake your head, but I'll tell you that all of the things you're asking the committee to do, that's what governments are supposed to do.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Well, do it.

Mr Tilson: Philosophically, we talk about doing things, and one of the differences between our government and your former government is that we don't like layers of bureaucracy. That's what you did.

Mr Laughren: Stop being silly. That's why we're right, because we consulted. You're being ridiculous.

Mr Tilson: I'm not being silly. That's why we're in the terrible financial position we're in.

Mr Laughren: You've got all the answers. You know it all, don't you?

Mr Tilson: This is an added layer of bureaucracy and we find it puzzling as to why a government would set up a committee to review the recommendations made by a previous committee when we have government departments, government ministries that are quite capable of carrying out this mandate. This is something the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment and Energy undertake anyway.

Mr Laughren: What arrogance. Wisdom resides only there. What a bunch.

Mr Tilson: One of the problems with carcinogens is that you cannot eliminate the presence of certain carcinogens by merely prohibiting their manufacture in the province of Ontario.

Mr Laughren: Gee, the incompetence of your colleagues shows all wisdom doesn't reside over there. You're surrounded by the incompetents you are.

Mr Tilson: As I indicated, carcinogens will continue to be carried across --

Mr Laughren: How can you say you don't need the advice of Ontario?

Mr Tilson: The member keeps blathering away over there, Mr Speaker, and I only have a few minutes left. If you can keep him under control.

Carcinogens will continue to be carried across borders in the air and water, so as a result the Ministry of Environment and Energy is working with other ministries of the environment to harmonize environmental management activities across the country.

We are concerned, of course, about the effect of doing something when you're not certain what the ultimate effect will be. We're concerned, for example, about what effect this will have on our food supply. I repeat your statement: You don't have 100% proof that these things are causing what you say they are. There are products that are continuing to be imported from other countries, from other provinces. I suppose we could encourage the federal government to ban certain food products that contain these things from coming, but you have to be a little bit more careful as to how you go about it.

Mr Speaker, there are a couple of comments other members from this side of the House would like to make, so I would thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue, but I can tell you I will be opposing this resolution simply on the fact that it's creating another level of bureaucracy we don't need.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): First of all, I want to commend the member for Riverdale for this resolution. It is true these are responsibilities of government, but all governments of all parties at all levels have always worked with task forces and volunteer committees. I see this committee as being just another arm that will help us in the cause of eliminating cancer ultimately.

The fact that it is everywhere, as the member for Dufferin-Peel has said, is the very argument for doing as much as we can to eradicate this particular disease. I think all of us whose families have been touched by this disease know at first hand that something has to be done, and if anything is done and we can do all of these measures cumulatively, such as the sunsetting of the persistent toxic chemicals, that at least is the beginning. It's only about 20 years ago that they banned the manufacture of PCBs, and that in itself began a new era of prevention.

Hopefully, we will all support this resolution. Frankly, I think you'd have to be out of your mind to vote against this resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm happy to carry on with the comments of the member for Mississauga South, who has certainly suggested something very strong this morning; that is, that anybody who would oppose this motion is out of his or her mind. Therefore, it would be difficult to oppose this.

There is no question that it identifies a very major problem we have in our society. If you talk to individuals, particularly those who have had people in the family afflicted by cancer, we recognize there is a consensus out there, regardless of a person's political affiliation or particular background, that a major effort has to be made to deal with, yes, the curing of the disease, yes, the treatment of the disease, but certainly moving into the field of prevention.

The suggestion that is made in this resolution that the government of Ontario "(

a) immediately appoint a working committee consisting of environmental, health, labour, industry, women's, aboriginal and other interested groups; and (

b) work with the committee to establish realistic and measurable timetables for sunsetting persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens as outlined in the report of the task force" makes a lot of sense, but it really suggests that you have to make a very significant initiative take place in the Ministry of Environment.

My concern right now is that the Ministry of Environment has just had another $200 million eliminated from its budget. I know it sounds good to say that we are going to reduce government expenditures, and certainly there have to be areas where governments have to become more efficient and have to reduce those expenditures; I think everyone accepts that. But let me give fair warning that in the Ministry of Environment what you're going to see is an increase in the accumulation of these substances that are made reference to in this resolution and not an elimination or a reduction of them.

There was a major initiative put forward called the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. Really, in very straightforward terms, that is a very extensive water pollution regulation which had as its goal the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances going into our waterways. That, by the way, was written into an agreement over Niagara Falls and the Niagara River with the Department of Environmental Protection in New York state, the federal authority, which is the Environmental Protection Agency, in the US, Environment Canada and Environment Ontario.

The reason that was included was that we wanted to see that virtual elimination. In other words, I think people looked at zero discharge. It was defined in that agreement as the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances. And I know that is the goal of this particular initiative.

There are persistent substances that do not leave us. Once they are in the soil or in the waterways or in the air, where they're deposited elsewhere, they do not leave us. In fact, they do not leave our bodies in many cases. When you do an autopsy of a human body of, say, the age of 70, if you did a very extensive autopsy, you would find an accumulation of many of these substances.

There is rather strong evidence that these substances that are accumulated through the workplace, through simply our lives, through exposure to contaminants, are with us and that they have a connection with various diseases, including cancer. You will see that the rate of cancer in areas which are heavily industrially polluted tends to be higher.

There is, as I say, consistent evidence out there that ignoring the environment, that not trying to deal with these substances, will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the human body and on the health care bill in this province, if you want to put it in very crass terms. So when I look at this resolution, I think it will make a contribution.

A former Minister of the Environment and member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ruth Grier, is here today. She had a very great interest in the environment as a critic, and then of course as Minister of the Environment and then as Minister of Health for this province. She would know, as others in this assembly know, how important it is to have a strong and vital Ministry of Environment with the appropriate resources, with the appropriate staff and with the clout within government to ensure that we bring about this kind of reduction.

The committee will be of benefit. Acting upon the recommendations of the committee will be the true test of whether we're going to deal seriously with environmental challenges that face our province and other jurisdictions. I think we can be a leader in this connection. But it really points to the full implementation of the water pollution regulation that was put into effect in 1990 and is still being put into effect. It calls for a clean air program which would be in effect the same kind of regulation affecting air pollutants. I think it looks very wisely to the workplace, where many are exposed to the kinds of substances which are bound to have a detrimental effect on health.

Because cancer is a disease which is so prominent in our society, quite widespread, I'm sure all of the population of Ontario would respond positively to this initiative and others which are designed to reduce those contaminants that may contribute to cancer.

Ms Churley: When I wrote this resolution, I worked very, very hard to make it as non-partisan as possible. In my speech today I worked very hard to be non-partisan. Believe me, that can be very difficult in this place, given my concerns about a lot of this government's agenda, and in my case, as critic for the environment, the cuts to the environment. I stayed away from all of that because I truly believed that something as motherhood as my resolution today -- I'm shocked at the words I heard from the members of the government side. This is not creating another layer of bureaucracy.

That is an excuse for inaction, and I am afraid I am seeing this government now using this "Let's not create any more bureaucracy" as a dumb excuse to not take their responsibilities as a government in the province of Ontario.

My God, we're talking about $1 billion a year being spent by the taxpayers of this province. We're talking about untold anguish as people go through cancer care and many die. We had a member of our caucus, Anne Swarbrick, who went through an agonizing time with breast cancer; we had another member of our caucus, when we were in government, Margery Ward, the member for Don Mills, die of cancer. We've all had, as everybody here said today, people close to us suffering from cancer. This is not another level of bureaucracy.

The member for Nickel Belt as well, as we all know, just recently went through and is now a cancer survivor. We're very, very happy to have him with us today. He's just gone through the agonizing process of recuperating from cancer.

I was shocked at the response particularly from the member for Dufferin-Peel. He says he is concerned that because we're not 100% certain about these things, he can't support it. I would say to you that in the document which we're all referring to today -- and he neglected to read some of the quotes like this -- "However, sunsetting should be put in place recognizing the different degrees of evidence now available. Thus, in establishing timetables for sunsetting, early consideration should be given to ban those organochlorines," etc. They're erring on the side of safety here.

This is the same government, however -- and that's what was so ironic and shocking and frankly stupid about this response -- that is asking us to all take a giant leap of faith on a 30% tax cut which they say is going to stimulate the economy and create jobs and take everybody off welfare and we're all going to live in honeyland or something. They have no business plans to prove that; they have no studies to prove it. It's an enormous leap of faith. They just stood in this House recently with a

summary of business plans but with no real business plans to justify and show the impacts of these massive multibillion-dollar cuts they're making to social services and health and right across the board. They're asking us, again, to take a giant leap of faith. We don't have 100% proof, in fact far from it, that this is going to work, but, "Trust us."

Here we are talking about cancer and death and billions of dollars being spent and they're saying, "We need 100% proof before we can go along with this." So what we've been told by members of this government today, except for the member for Mississauga South, whom I applaud, is that they do not support the phase-out of carcinogenic pollutants in our environment. That is absolutely shocking; you're not supporting this resolution because you don't have 100% proof. That's another excuse, like the bureaucracy.

If there was ever a time when we needed a non-partisan body of people working together outside government and with government to try to deal with these catastrophic problems, it is now. While this government is busy deregulating like crazy throughout the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, when you add them all up, and I'm in the process of doing that, the cuts to our environmental protection are phenomenal.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough talks about the Canada-Ontario agreement. These are things that have been acted on for some time. It's slow, it's acting in isolation; he didn't talk about what the deadlines are and that with these huge cuts that are being made to that ministry, there will be no staff left to run these programs any more. Even that is going to disappear. The member did not say whether or not he supported the sunsetting but I assume, because he's voting against the resolution, he doesn't.

I find this very hard to understand. I can't understand, when I'm asking for -- there is a huge number of resolutions in this book, people with expertise in the area who are very worried. In fact, one of them who was working on this report -- it's dedicated to his memory -- M. David Kassirer, died of cancer in the process of writing this report. There are very dedicated people who worked on this who are very worried about the lack of preventive care we have in the province of Ontario.

We had an opportunity today to take just one piece of this resolution to show Ontario that in areas such as cancer and cancer prevention we can all work together. We can work with the citizens of this province who are working very hard to come together and try to correct the problems that are out there, and in a crass way, to save taxpayers' money down the road; that is the real irony in this situation, where people can do something, and this government is saying no today.

I assume that the members didn't pay a lot of attention to this resolution, that there was a bit of scurrying around and that the minister had to take a quick look at it and tell people how to vote today: "Don't let them add on another level of bureaucracy. We don't want to have to deal with this."

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Listen to my argument. For once, listen to what's being said over here. Sometimes the opposition has some good advice and some important things to say. We're elected as well. When I hear that kind of heckling over there, I'm upset because this is something that I believe we could make a difference on. I believe that you were told today, without full knowledge, without having read this report, not to support my resolution because it would put on a layer of bureaucracy. Think about it. Look at the people who are sitting in the gallery today.

Two of these women have been working for years on women's health and are very aware that if we don't start doing something and pulling together a coordinated effort, nothing is going to happen.

The very nature of the complexities of these recommendations is the reason why it for a coordinated strategy. I have no illusion that it's going to be difficult to ban and phase out a lot of these chemicals. The report admits that and says that. We need industry involved in a big way; we need all of the community involved in a big way to make this happen.

I urge all members to support this resolution today.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Tilson moved private member's notice of motion number 12:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the federal Liberal government introduced

section 745 to the Criminal Code in 1976; and

Since a person convicted of first-degree murder is not eligible to apply for parole for 25 years at the time of sentencing; and

Since

section 745 says that where an offender has a parole ineligibility period of more than 15 years and the offender has served at least 15 years, or only 60% of their sentence, the offender can apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period; and

Since CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and the Police Association of Ontario have all called on the federal government to immediately repeal

section 745 from the Criminal Code; and

Since holding hearings under

section 745 uses precious resources which could be redirected elsewhere to prosecute serious crime; and

Since the federal government has failed to pass a private member's bill that Liberal backbench member John Nunziata of Ontario tabled in the federal House of Commons in the years 1991, 1994 and 1995, that calls for the repeal of

section 745; and

Since federal Justice Minister Allan Rock has failed to state definitively that the federal government will repeal

section 745 to keep convicted murderers off the streets of our communities;

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would the member for Dufferin-Peel like 10 minutes?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The resolution which I have just read essentially outlines what the federal legislation under the Criminal Code,

section 745, deals with, and it has created, particularly in recent years, a great amount of consternation as to what we should be doing.

Yesterday I had a press conference in which a number of representatives, basically the groups that were referred to in the resolution, came to Queen's Park and gave their

interpretation of the problems that are being created with respect to

section

Section 745 was introduced to the Criminal Code of Canada in 1976 by the federal Liberal government of the day, and its purpose at that time was to give lifers the possibility, however remote, of an early parole. It became known as the "faint hope clause." At that time, it was stated that it was to be used only in the very rarest of circumstances. What has happened over the last 20 years has been anything but rare. Corrections Canada reports that 79% of first-degree murderers who have applied have received some form of early release. That's 50 out of the 63 cases dealt with up to December of last year.

There's a wonderful report that was given to me by Victims of Violence which I'd recommend that some of you read. It's called

Section 745 of the Criminal Code and the entire paper deals with this subject. It was given to me by one of the people who came yesterday, Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son was one of the victims of Clifford Olson, and I'd recommend that all of you read that. It has even more up-to-date statistics than the ones I've just reiterated to you.

When a murderer, a killer, is convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced, there is no discretion to the judge. That's how seriously we treat this crime in this country. The sentence must be 25 years with no possibility of parole. But in 1976, as I stated,

section 745 changed the finality of that conviction because

section 745 says that where an offender has a parole ineligibility period of more than 15 years and the offender has served at least 15 years, the offender can apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period.

That application is made through the provincial system, where a provincial jury deals with it and determines whether or not the killer is subject to parole. If that application is successful, it then goes on to the federal parole board.

Yesterday morning, as I indicated, a news conference was held supporting my resolution to request that the federal government repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and at that news conference there were representatives from the Canadian Police Association. Chief Julian Fantino, who is vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police for the city of London, was there. He made some comments.

There were representatives from the Police Association of Ontario; Rick Huston and Brenda Lawson were there. Priscilla de Villiers of CAVEAT and Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt of Victims of Violence were there. As I indicated, Sharon and Gary are the parents of Daryn, who was killed by Clifford Olson, who has been gaining quite a lot of publicity. He's taken a course somewhere on how to be a minister, down in Acadia University, I think, at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer, and he has served notice that he intends to be applying for his review of

section 745. That comes up in August, and he has already filed a letter with the Chief Justice of British Columbia indicating that he's applying for this review.

He even had the gall to write a letter to John Nunziata, the Liberal MP from Ontario, expressing what he thinks of Mr Nunziata, who has done the wonderful work with respect to this bill. I'm going to read the letter because this shows the arrogance of a man who conceivably could be let out on our streets with this

section 745:

"John, you're a little late in reintroducing your private member's bill, the faint hope clause. Sorry, sucker. Smile now. The beast of British Columbia" -- and I'm cleaning up the language because it's full of obscenities -- "I'm coming home August 12 and not a thing you can do."

That is an attitude from one of the killers who even qualifies. The very fact that this man has the possibility of applying -- he has no right to apply. He was sentenced for life, and now this terrible

section has the possibility that he could be out on the streets in August of this year.

As I indicated, Priscilla de Villiers of CAVEAT was there. She lost her daughter Nina to Jonathan Yeo, who slaughtered her when he was out on bail. The Rosenfeldts' son Daryn, of course, was murdered by Olson.

Olson's right is not so much the issue as the fact that all the victims' families are reduced to reliving the original nightmare when Olson receives the judicial review of his sentence. The families will only be eligible to submit a victim impact statement. That's all they can do in order to maintain his incarceration, these families that go through these terrible trials. We all were shocked at the Bernardo horror story, and families like those victims are going to have to go through this again with these hearings.

It will mean as well, as with the families of murder victims, that people like the Rosenfeldts must relive the emotional agony in front of another jury.

Section 745 requires that a jury be present to hear reasons for and against early parole. If a jury decides that people like Clifford Olson must be incarcerated another five years, then again in five years the Rosenfeldts will have to go through another living hell, another jury, another victim impact statement.

Under the present law, jury trials cost our province for trial time, for courtroom time, for staff and legal assistance for prisoners. This money that comes out of the coffers of the provincial taxpayer could be refocused on prosecuting other serious crimes and dealing with other serious crimes that occur in our province.

British Columbia and Alberta are presently considering requesting the federal government to repeal this section, and I am asking this Legislature to be the first provincial government to vote in favour of asking the federal government to repeal

section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I can tell you that I listened to the comments of Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt yesterday, and as this date in August is approaching, their lives are becoming more and more of a hell.

I only have a minute left and I do recommend to members of this House that no matter how you vote in this resolution -- and I hope you do, because Mr Rock and his federal caucus are meeting shortly. It was supposed to have been yesterday but I gather that's been delayed so this is still on the records and we still have an opportunity to persuade the Liberal caucus along with other members, people across this country, to ask him to completely repeal the section. Mr Rock has made suggestions that he is going to tinker with it, that he's going to clarify who is qualifying for this

section and who is not.

When you're sentenced to life, you're sentenced to life, and that's that. It's as simple as that. Anyone who watches these terrible crimes, if you support this resolution, just remember the Bernardo trial. That's the type of crimes that we're dealing with, these unbelievable, terrible crimes, and to allow these people out in 15 years and take the attitude of Clifford Olson is absolutely inexcusable. So I encourage those supporters --

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): You are disgusting. You play to the cheapest, the meanest level.

Mr Tilson: You'll have your chance, and I'll tell you that it's time --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Rainy River is out of order.

Mr Tilson: I'm amazed that the heckling is going on from the other side, which implies that he's going to continue to support

section 745.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise to speak to the resolution brought forth by the member for Dufferin-Peel and in support of the positions of CAVEAT and Victims of Violence and others. You may remember that I was very involved in bringing about a charter of rights for victims of crime, and this is an issue which is of extreme importance.

The federal government is currently considering changes to 745 and I think the Legislature has an opportunity to make some comments with respect to that. I'd like to review just briefly what the system is like now so we have a full understanding of what it is we'll be voting on.

The Criminal Code now provides for automatic life sentences for murder. For first-degree murder the parole and eligibility period is 25 years. For second-degree, the judge, after considering any recommendation from the jury, sets the period somewhere between 10 and 25 years. What

section 745 does is allow for a special judicial review at the 15-year point of the sentence. The offender must apply for the review. The application is made to the Chief Justice of the superior court in the province and the Chief Justice then designates a judge and panel to hear the application.

The jury has complete authority to decide that (

a) there should be no reduction in parole ineligibility period, (

b) that there should be a reduction by a specified number of years, or (

c) the ineligibility period should be terminated. If the jury rejects that application, it can then set a future date when the applicant can reapply for judicial review.

A formal hearing is held. Correctional Service Canada prepares a report which describes the institutional record of the offender. You may recall that Bill C-41, which was

an act to amend the Criminal Code, was passed in the last session and amended

section 745 to require the jury to also consider any information provided by a victim either at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing. Therefore, a victim impact statement is required at the time that the hearing is held.

The jury then must consider the character of the applicant, his conduct during the sentence, the nature of his offence, and other matters that are considered relevant in the matter. Two thirds of the jury must agree on the determination. Even if the jury reduces the ineligibility period, the National Parole Board still must determine at a parole hearing whether the offender should receive parole.

The point is that there are some steps that have to be followed; it is not automatic and it is not indiscriminate.

Regardless of the decision of the jury or the parole board, the life sentence continues for the natural life of the offender. Parole is subject to conditions and can be revoked for breach.

We've heard a little bit from the member for Dufferin-Peel about statistics, and I'd like to run through those briefly. We have currently in penitentiary some 2,085 murderers -- that's about 15% of the penitentiary population -- 574 of whom are first-degree and therefore subject to 25 years in jail. A number of murderers have been eligible for parole under

section 745. The stats up to December 1995 are as follows: 175 people have been eligible and only 74 have applied, that is, only 42% of those eligible have actually applied; and 63 reviews have been completed, with 13 refused a reduction in parole and 50 granted some partial reduction in parole.

It's important to bear in mind the numbers. It's also important to bear in mind that this is still relatively new and that the stats with respect to reoffending by murderers are also very new. For instance, of the 558 first- and second-degree murderers released between 1975 and 1990, only five committed another murder. That means less than 1% recommitted. That's an important statistic we should keep in mind as we consider our recommendations to the government.

It might also interest the Legislature to know what the parole eligibility is around the world in countries that have more or less the same judicial system as we do. Virtually everywhere, the parole eligibility threshold, if you like, is somewhere between 10 and 15 years. In the United States, the average time served before parole is 18 years at the federal level, and 15 years is the average for all the states. The 25 years we have is different from what is being done elsewhere in the world.

The federal ministry, as we know, is committed to changes by the end of April. It has stated that improvements are required, and I think everyone in this House can agree that improvements indeed are required. There are some cautions we should bear in mind as we send our resolution to the federal government, and that is that blanket rules sometimes have a way of catching people we would not want to be caught under those rules.

I'll give you one example. Not everyone in a penitentiary serving life for murder is a Clifford Olson. Some people are, for instance, women accused of killing abusive husbands. The question is whether they should be treated in the same way, whether there shouldn't be some facility within the rules for allowing for those kinds of extenuating circumstances.

I would also focus on the fact that, regardless of the crime, rehabilitation is critical. Whether we release a murderer at 15 years or at 25 years, eventually they're going to be in society. It is absolutely crucial that we enable those individuals to function as safe members of our community and not damage our communities and our children's safety and our own. That is an important factor that should be noted.

There's no question that the bureaucracy currently in place to deal with

section 745 is excessive, and I think it should be sent to the Attorney General for review. To suggest that after having had a full hearing of the individual's case we then have subsequent hearings to determine virtually the same thing, at very high cost -- that may not be what the rule was designed for, and we want to be very cautious in looking at that.

I support this resolution in principle, but let me say this to the member and to the government: There's a hypocrisy in this resolution coming forth from that part of the House. Remember that just a few months ago we were here and, under considerable pressure, managed to have an inquiry into the Homolka case. It was the member for Dufferin-Peel who mentioned the Bernardo case. I remind you that despite public outcry, we were not able to have a public inquiry into one of the most horrendous crimes that has been committed in the history of the province.

And I would remind you that the terms of reference set for that inquiry were of such a nature that basic evidence could not be obtained under oath by the judge in question, and that it occurred at a time prior to other facts being able to be put before the judge in question. We were left with a decision that essentially said, "The status quo prevails." We did not reopen the Homolka inquiry, despite evidence to the contrary that it could be done. Furthermore, we did nothing at all in dealing with the parole provisions for Homolka herself.

I have to say to the member for Dufferin-Peel, as I rise to support his resolution in principle, with the cautions I have given, that he would be well served to go back and examine the record of his government on this issue prior to sending recommendations of this sort to the federal government. What has been done here with respect to Homolka is certainly not justice. I hope the federal government will provide justice, but I must say, I would have expected a far different position on the part of this government with respect to its own House.

Mr Hampton: I want to take

part in this debate to shed some further light on the issues that seem to be in dispute here, or at least the issues presented by the member for Dufferin-Peel.

There is some history that has been left out, and it's history worth noting. The fact is that Canada amended the Criminal Code between 1974 and 1976. The member refers to the fact that in 1976, the maximum sentence without parole eligibility was increased to 25 years. That was in 1974. What the member doesn't acknowledge is that before that, the maximum period without eligibility for parole was 10 years. So between 1974 and 1976, the maximum sentence without eligibility for parole was increased from 10 years to 25 years.

In increasing that maximum sentence without eligibility for parole, Parliament put in a check and balance, and the check and balance was to say, if after 15 years of serving the maximum sentence someone wants to apply for a judicial review of the remainder of their sentence, they're eligible to do so. Why would Parliament do that? It's worthwhile looking at the statistical evidence.

The fact is that most murders committed in Canada are not premeditated murders. In fact, most situations of murder happen between people who know one another. They happen, in most cases, when the individuals, whether through alcohol or whether through emotion, temporarily do something they would not otherwise do. That's the historical fact with respect to these situations.

The statistical evidence shows that people who have been convicted of murder in Canada are the least likely to reoffend of any group or of any crime type. What Parliament was trying to get at was the irrationality of keeping someone locked up for a further 10 years when a review of their sentence would indicate that (

a) they are not likely to reoffend, and (

b) there is clear evidence of rehabilitation and clear evidence of regret. So Parliament looked at it and said why in these cases would we want to keep someone locked up for an additional 10 years, particularly when the average cost of keeping someone incarcerated at this point in time is close to $50,000 a year?

In other words, Parliament was saying, in terms of examining how we ought to use precious justice resources, does it make sense to keep someone locked up for an additional 10 years at a cost of $50,000 a year, or does it make sense to devote those resources in the justice system to where they may more usefully be put to work? Parliament, I think, set out a logical standard or a logical test for the utilization of resources.

The indication is that the 1974-76 amendments in themselves, that is, increasing the maximum sentence without parole eligibility from 10 years to 25 years, resulted in almost another 1,000 individuals being incarcerated who otherwise wouldn't have been incarcerated. In other words, the cost to the justice system of that amendment was over $450 million -- $450 million that could have been spent prosecuting crime, $450 million that could have been devoted to better policing, more community policing.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): What's a life worth? Only $50,000.

Mr Hampton: The member over here from Etobicoke-Rexdale rants on in a tone that I can only call revenge, as if the only goal of the justice system is to visit revenge. That is not the only goal of the justice system. The justice system, yes, is to mete out penalty where it's proven upon conviction that penalty is required. The goal of the justice system is to protect the public. The goal of the justice system is to attempt as much as possible to rehabilitate someone.

What Parliament had to grapple with was, what is the rationale for keeping someone in jail a further 10 years when all of the evidence you're presented with indicates that it is unlikely they're going to reoffend, that they are filled with remorse and regret for the events that happened and that they have rehabilitated themselves?

What public interest, in terms of protecting the public, in terms of protecting victims, is served by keeping someone like that in jail for a further 10 years? I don't think there's any public interest. I think only revenge is being served by keeping someone in jail like that, in that situation, for a further 10 years, and I believe it would be a gross misuse of justice funds.

I would much rather see those funds dedicated to better policing; I would much rather see those funds dedicated to things like a women's crisis centre, second-stage housing for the victims of spousal abuse, to more prosecutorial resources so that crown attorneys can do a better job or more community policing. In other words, there are a number of good public interest factors that far outweigh the revenge that some of the members of the government are talking about.

I want to comment just a bit upon the approach of the member for Dufferin-Peel. The member expressed a lot of emotion in the House today, and that's his right, but I would just say to him, yes, I can point out examples and he can point out examples where some hideous crimes have been perpetrated, but to base a justice system and to base the principles of the justice system on a few hideous crimes which are designed to raise emotion is, I believe, simply headed in the wrong direction. The principles of our justice system should not be based upon the activities of a Homolka, or a Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson.

They represent, I would argue, the worst examples. But there are literally thousands of other cases in our justice system, and we must do justice to all of them. So to argue emotionally from the worst cases, and to argue emotionally that that is the basis upon which we should revisit or rework a principle that has been shown to have good effect in a lot of other cases is, I believe, not very good reasoning.

I want to review just for a moment the actual applications for judicial review. In New Brunswick, there has been one, and in that case the parole eligibility was reduced to 20 years from 25. In Nova Scotia, there has been one, and parole eligibility was reduced from 25 years to 18 years. In Quebec, there has been a total of 28: 14 cases were reduced to 15 years for parole eligibility, four cases were reduced to 16 years, four to 17, one to 18, one to 19, two to 20, one to 22.

In Ontario, there have been 16 applications since 1976: one was reduced to 15 years, one was reduced to 16 years, one reduced to 17, one to 18, three to 19, one to 20 and one to 21, and seven were given no reduction at all.

I merely want to say, to conclude my remarks, that it may well be in the interests of justice, and the public interest generally, to review the operations of

section 745. When that is done, we should keep in mind that keeping people who were convicted of murder but have shown that they genuinely express remorse and regret, that they have been rehabilitated, that they show they are no threat to public safety and the public interest -- there are good grounds for using the judicial review process to examine whether or not a further 10 years of sentence is in the public interest at all.

There are good grounds for using those resources which otherwise might be committed to incarceration for things like increasing police budgets, increasing prosecutorial budgets, increasing the kind and the variety of community policing that I believe actually leads to safer communities.

The wrong approach to this is to come at this from a strictly emotional direction which cites two or three very serious crimes and then tries to argue that those two or three crimes ought to be used for the purposes of a general principle which would do injustice to all of the other cases we often find in the criminal justice system.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): It's my pleasure to rise this morning in support of Mr Tilson's resolution. As a young lawyer in the early 1970s I moved from the big city of Toronto to the small town of Preston, which is now part of Cambridge. This was a real contrast, I must say, from the big city, in that clients were your friends, not some impersonal file.

It was through my practice that I met the Pelz family, and I consider the Pelz family my friends. Bertha Pelz and her husband raised their family, consisting of five sisters, Liza, Toni, Joy, Nancy, Linda and a son, William. This was an industrious family, a family that was a credit to their community. In due course, Liza married Ronald Dube, and they had a son called Jason.

I'd like to report to you that this family lived happily ever after, but it did not. In 1979 the peace and serenity of this family was shattered permanently. On June 27, 1979, Ronald Dube shot his wife in the back with a shotgun. As she lay on the ground dying, his confession says that she gurgled on her own blood while she repeated his name over and over again, but that wasn't enough. He then dragged the body to a pigsty to be ravaged by pigs.

In 1979 the hopes and dreams of the Pelz family died by this act of brutality. But justice prevailed and on March 12, 1980, Chief Justice G.T. Evans convicted Dube of first-degree murder, murder in cold blood, murder that was premeditated, and sentenced him to 25 years without parole, with release in the year 2005. At that trial, Mr Dube actually threatened to kill Toni Pelz, one of the members of the Pelz family, because she had adopted the son, Jason, of the marriage of Liza and Dube. At that trial, even the crown attorney told the family, "You better seek protection, because this man is very dangerous." But for 25 years, until the year 2005, they can go about their lives.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened.

Section 745 intervened.

Section 745, I believe, is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public. We Ontario taxpayers paid for Ronald Dube to make an application under

section 745 in 1995, 15 years into his sentence. We paid for the convicted murderer to present his case to a judge and jury. Of course no one represented the Pelz family, no one paid for them to attend the hearing. They did so at their own expense. Nor were they permitted to testify. They were not able to tell their story of how this had changed their lives.

Only Dube testified and now he conveniently forgot his confession. Now he didn't do the killing; it was someone else in his presence. Yes, this convicted murderer walks among us in our society today on unescorted passes and, in three short years, he will be applying for parole. What peace have we left the Pelz family? Where's the justice they deserve? We all want guarantees of safety and protection in our society. This family has bravely told their story to Canada. They've requested the opportunity to attend before the justice committee federally and, to date, have not received that opportunity. When will the Pelz family receive the justice they deserve from our society?

We can help prevent future problems of this kind. We can't help the Pelz family, quite frankly, but we can prevent the same thing happening to the Mahaffys and the Frenches and others who are innocent and suffer at the hands of brutality.

I am requesting that you support this resolution.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in support of the principle that is presented in front of us today. Very clearly, I think this country is going through a difficult time and a very difficult debate as to where we move with our justice system, a justice system that I agree over the years has been flawed, a justice system that often does not protect the victims, does more to protect the criminals, does more to protect people who inflict the pain rather than the people who receive the pain.

It's a justice system that, in my view, needs to be overhauled at every level of government and needs to put the focus back where it belongs, and that is on the criminals and the people who create mayhem for people, who destroy people's lives and who destroy families.

We've seen it in my own community over the years. We had a situation where Jon Rallo, a city of Hamilton employee at that time, proceeded to murder his young son Jason, his young daughter Stephanie and his wife and has applied a number of times under 745 and is now, as we're aware, living in a halfway house, after serving about 15 years of a life sentence of 25. So it averages out to about five years for the life of young Jason, five years for the life of young Stephanie and five years for his wife's life.

We have seen the murder of Nina de Villiers, a McMaster University student, and we have seen, in the southern Ontario area, the murder of the French and Mahaffy girls, and it is these types of incidents that bring to light the need for some very serious reform in our criminal justice system. I very much believe that life means life. I very much believe that someone who is convicted of first-degree murder and is sentenced to 25 years should serve a 25-year sentence, period, if that is the maximum allowed under our system.

I think there are too many loopholes. I think 745, unfortunately, has been used by the Clifford Olsons and others across this country, has been an abuse and waste of taxpayers' dollars, and it really has continued the insult on the victims, because every time one of these animals applies under 745, you're reliving the tragedy again for that family. You're once again, for that family, bringing back the horror, the difficulties, the pain every single time, and it is unfair. It is reliving the tragedy, it is bringing that tragedy back to their doorstep and to their home again and again and again.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, I would like to see a system in place where, automatically, life means life, 25 years means 25 years. The onus should be the other way.

Section 745, on its own, should be eliminated, but there should be an opportunity for a judge -- if there is, for example, a woman who after years of an abusive situation, and clearly the evidence is that it was self-defence, is convicted of murder, or clearly the evidence is that she could not escape this abusive situation and she was convicted, that circumstance would be different, obviously, than a Clifford Olson. But that onus should be on the evidence at the trial and it should be placed on the exceptions rather than 745 being the rule, where everyone is eligible for it.

I think it is dangerous the way it is set up. It allows the potential for many of these people to be freed, for many of these people to go out and murder again. Very clearly, anything we can do to push the government to take the right steps and move towards eliminating -- 745 being tinkered with is not going to be good enough; 745 simply being played with is not going to be good enough. We have to ensure there's a system that does not allow these individuals automatic access to a parole hearing, automatic access to the possibility of being out after 15 years, regardless of how many people they have killed, regardless of the circumstances.

I certainly concur with the work of CAVEAT, Victims of Violence and many other organizations across this province and this country that have urged the federal government to change the legislation, that have worked with this provincial government to help us urge the federal government change this legislation. I would hope that if we continue to work with CAVEAT, with Victims of Violence and with other groups right across this province and this country, we will get the legislation changed. Let's ensure that finally we have a justice system where victims are treated as victims and criminals are treated as criminals.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to speak to this resolution today. I will be supporting the resolution in an attempt to make Ontario a safer place for our constituents and our children.

Some might say this is a resolution which calls upon the federal government to act on matters that fall outside this Legislature's jurisdiction, but I feel this issue is one of provincial jurisdiction because it directly affects law enforcement and court systems which do fall under provincial control.

What we're talking about here today is a

section of the Criminal Code,

section 745, which says where an offender has a parole ineligibility period of more than 15 years and the offender has served at least 15 years, which is just 60% of the sentence, the offender can apply to the court for a reduction of the parole ineligibility period.

Part of my support for this resolution comes from the strong feedback I received from constituents as I travelled door to door during last June's election. The attitudes were the same whether it was in the larger communities of Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Midland or in the smaller places like Hekkla, Dwight and Victoria Harbour. After speaking to these people, I feel I can safely say one of the major concerns among the public is the criminal justice system and the important issue of public safety.

I believe people across the province are fed up with reading stories about crimes committed by individuals on parole. When such tragic events occur, they create a sense of fear in communities. They cause people to lose confidence in our justice system. In fact, I believe there's a prevailing sense on the part of the public that an imbalance exists between criminals and victims. It was because the public felt criminals had more rights than victims that our government recently passed a provincial Victims' Bill of Rights. It's unfortunate that this bill of rights was necessary.

It's critical for governments to close openings for killers to earn early parole before they've served a full sentence, which is what

section 745 allows. It creates the potential for new victims. It creates a bureaucratic, expensive process which gives convicted murderers an opportunity to get back into the community after serving just 15 years. Of the things the people of Muskoka-Georgian Bay elected me to do, high on the list is the elimination of frivolous processes and the issue of offenders serving partial sentences.

It's my understanding that approximately 15% of the offenders have their parole revoked and an estimated half of those revocations are for committing a criminal offence while on parole. These statistics are cause for concern when considered within the context of

section 745 and the first-degree murderers who can benefit from this legal loophole.

It seems unbelievable that it's even up for debate. A first-degree murderer, whether he or she be a serial killer or not, should not be able to demand a judicial review after 15 years of what was supposed to be a minimum 25-year sentence. I believe this

section of the law makes a mockery of the original trial and sentencing process.

I'd have to agree with statements made by Liberal MP John Nunziata when he said

section 745 does not reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians. It certainly doesn't reflect the sentiment of my constituents. That's why I'll be voting in support of this resolution put forward by the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I welcome an opportunity to rise this morning in support of the bill put forward by the member for Dufferin-Peel. I ask the House to consider a couple of issues that I think are different from those put forward so far.

I first of all recognize that there are two sides to the issue. I remember in 1976 being a young lawyer doing some defence work when this change was introduced, and supporting the idea and the concept. Today, 20 years later, after five years of applications under this particular section, 173 murderers being eligible as of the middle of last year and some 60 reviews having been conducted, and after having spent 11 years on the provincial court bench, I have a little different perspective on the views I held in 1976.

I also would ask you to consider the weakness of the argument that will be made that we should allow the

section to stand but that it not apply to certain types of criminals and certain types of people, and of course they're referred to as the Bernardo-like or the Olson-like type of criminal. My point herein is that everyone in 1995 and 1996 in Canada convicted and sentenced to a term of 25 years fits into that category.

I'd ask you to understand a couple of things, what's happening right now in your riding, in every courthouse in this province, and to understand exactly how the judicial system works in this province and just how difficult it is to gain a conviction in Canada today for murder one. You have to understand the pressures on the people working in the crown's office. You have to understand the pressures on the men and women of the bench in this province. Unless you're capable of understanding the inner workings of that system, I don't think you're able to appreciate the public debate which surfaces as a result of the criminal trials which attract media attention.

I would like to pose a couple of questions, the first being the position you might be prepared to adopt today with regard to the infamous Bernardo case if those tapes had not surfaced. If those tapes had been destroyed, would your position be different vis-à-vis the plea bargain of the accomplice of Mr Bernardo? Would that force you to adopt a position different from the one that you have in your mind today?

In relation to another case that drew a lot of attention over the past 12 or 14 months, what if a member of the Simpson defence team were, in a publication or a book, to reveal that the defence team had actually, prior to the trial starting in Los Angeles, offered to cop a plea to a lesser offence and, notwithstanding the refusal of that, we had the acquittal of Mr Simpson as experienced on national television?

When you consider the implications of those possibilities, you might gain a sense of the pressures of which I speak that are right now in your home town, in the courthouse in the riding that you represent; of the people who are working on behalf of the crown's office for the Attorney General of this province and the problems that they face, the problems that judges face in deciding whether or not to buy into an offer, into a plea bargain. Unless you appreciate the significance and the difficulties that are being handled on a very professional basis in every corner of this province, I don't think you can deal with, in a legitimate manner, the matters inherent in this bill.

What I am suggesting to you is that by adopting the resolution that's before you this morning and by having it referred to a standing committee of this House, there will be an opportunity for members of this House to appreciate the level of professionalism in our justice system, which serves each and every corner of this province on a daily basis. I think that reason and that reason alone is sufficient to authorize the passing of the matter that's before you today, and I urge you to do so.

Mr Hastings: I would briefly like to rise and applaud the member for Dufferin-Peel for his presentation of this initiative to urge the federal government to get rid of

section 745.

It was interesting to hear the remarks of the member for Kenora. Talk about trying to place a dollar figure on a life. I couldn't believe he would average it out at about $50,000. I listened to his remarks with considerable disgust, particularly when he said you could reuse this money for community-based policing. But in point of fact, the member for Rainy River -- not Kenora; my apology -- was going to be using some of this money for community-based policing to be picking up some of the very people who had violated their parole.

I would urge the members of this House to strongly support the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Peel.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes.

Mr Tilson: Very briefly, I'd like to thank all members for participating in the debate. We have heard arguments for and against. I won't repeat the arguments for; I have given those, as have other members. I would like to comment briefly on the main opposition to this resolution, which appears to come from the member for Rainy River, who seems to indicate that there are situations when these types of people should be released.

These people are killers. They're evil. When they're sentenced to 25 years after a trial, by a duly constituted trial and sometimes jury, that's the sentence they should receive. Members have referred to situations, the possibility of crimes of passion. We have other charges in the Criminal Code that those offences may be laid under, and generally those types of offences come under those charges. These are for the most evil of all cases.

In this respect, the member for Rainy River talks about how some people should be let out. There's a Calgary Liberal senator, Earl Hastings, who goes so far as to send letters to federal convicts instructing them on how to prepare for and receive a successful

section 745 hearing. He goes on to say, "You've got to express remorse, you've got to apply for legal aid two years before the 15-year mark and develop good interpersonal communication and leadership skills." It just boggles my mind that someone would do that.

There's a lawyer by the name of Stephen Fineberg, a specialist in prison law, who concurs with Senator Hastings. He feels that an offender is in an advantageous position when he can tell the decision-maker that he has already made progress, that it establishes his credibility.

These are concepts to try and get these killers out early and the reason why this resolution was brought: to tell Mr Rock we don't want these killers out in 15 years; we want them to serve the full life sentence.

CANCER PREVENTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Ms Churley. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Ms Churley has moved private member's notice of motion number 13. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

PAROLE SYSTEM

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 22, standing in the name of Mr Tilson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Tilson has moved private member's notice of motion number 12. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

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

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: We'll deal with the vote first and then we'll listen to your point of order.

CANCER PREVENTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Ms Churley has moved private member's notice of motion number 13. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Duncan, Dwight

McGuinty, Dalton

Arnott, Ted

Ecker, Janet

Miclash, Frank

Baird, John R.

Fisher, Barbara

Murdoch, Bill

Bassett, Isabel

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Boushy, Dave

Grimmett, Bill

O'Toole, John

Bradley, James J.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Caplan, Elinor

Hampton, Howard

Pettit, Trevor

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kwinter, Monte

Pouliot, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Sampson, Rob

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Shea, Derwyn

Cooke, David S.

Leadston, Gary L.

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Marland, Margaret

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Stewart, R. Gary

Beaubien, Marcel

Hodgson, Chris

Stockwell, Chris

Carroll, Jack

Johns, Helen

Tilson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Johnson, Bert

Turnbull, David

Danford, Harry

Klees, Frank

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Maves, Bart

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Gilchrist, Steve

Sheehan, Frank

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 25.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I simply draw to your attention that I believe that before you declared the second resolution, resolution 22, carried, there were five people standing in the House.

The Acting Speaker: I asked for the nays and I asked for the ayes. In my opinion, the ayes have it. I waited for a few seconds and then only two people stood. I then said that the motion carried, and that's the end of it.

We've debated all the issues we had to debate. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario presented the Minister of Health with a report entitled Answering the Call.

PAIRO visited 65 underserviced communities and met with over 300 community representatives across the province. That's consultation.

The report outlined what PAIRO believes are the criteria for successful recruitment and retention of doctors in underserviced areas.

Some of the recommendations include: direct contract alternate payment plans, an Ontario-wide physician registry, various infrastructure support mechanisms, expanded medical education opportunities in northern and rural areas, locum improvement programs and enhanced specialist backup support.

I agree with the recommendations of today's report and urge the Minister of Health to act quickly. I also urge the Minister of Health to repeal sections 29.1 through 29.7 of

schedule H of Bill 26 -- that's the billing number provision. Billing numbers are not a good solution to the problems of physician maldistribution. Billing numbers do create a climate of tension, anger and fear.

I would encourage the minister to read this excellent report from PAIRO and adopt the recommendations of the report, which I believe will solve the problems of doctor shortages in underserviced areas across this province.

But as a gesture of goodwill, I would ask the minister to admit that his bullying tactics are the wrong approach. I ask him to repeal the billing number provisions. Since he is not here in the House today for me to ask him a question, I rise for this statement.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to Premier Mike Harris. I raise today the issue of the demise of industry in the north at the hands of your government. You're supposed to be a friend of business, of commerce and, being from North Bay, a friend, one would hope, of the north. Not true, Mr Premier. Since your government took office the job loss in the north has escalated and what we are seeing is the death of business and industry in the north and a lack of job creation.

You and the federal government entered into a deal that was termed the best deal in a bad situation and now we have a 15% export tax on Ontario softwood lumber. I asked you in the House recently how many jobs would be lost in the north with this deal and I haven't received an answer as yet.

You are in the process of negotiating the largest giveaway of timber rights and forest management rights in the history of this province to the large forest companies, destroying community forest projects and creating additional job loss in independent logging and small forest companies.

Proposed changes to the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission could bring an end to the dairy industry in my riding of Cochrane North, and the end of norOntair service brings an end to the reliable air service in the north and more job loss.

NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of all members of the Legislature to announce that this Sunday marks the beginning of a special time in the province of Ontario, National Volunteer Week, from April 21 to 27.

This special week is set aside to thank and honour the many people who donate time, energy and expertise to their fellow citizens and to the causes we all believe in.

The week is also meant to increase public awareness of the vital contribution volunteers make to our communities and to Canadian society as a whole.

Their numbers are impressive: one in three of all Ontarians and close to six million strong across Canada. They are a mosaic of gender, religion, age and ethnicity, connected by their spirit of giving and caring.

Ontario's government recognizes that volunteerism continues to play a vital role in the development of our communities and our province.

During this special week we should join with voluntary organizations in paying tribute to the many volunteers who make outstanding contributions to our communities.

It is important that the efforts of these special citizens are recognized. Today more than ever, we need to recognize the importance of these actions in our communities. During National Volunteer Week, it is our time to say thank you to so many special individuals.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to bring to the government's and the minister's attention another victim of the revolution: April Adderley. She's the mother of two children, 3 and 8 years old. She attends York University. She's a straight-A student. She volunteers at her children's school

Saturday, she has an interview to get into teachers' college. She has been working very hard and very responsibly to get off family benefits. She has worked hard to raise her children at the same time.

The government's move to take her off welfare, take away her benefits and have her moved to OSAP is going to force her and her children to continue to depend on a life of welfare. April told us that Mike Harris is kicking her in the teeth. She told us that Mike Harris broke the promise he made to her during the campaign to give her a hand up. What this government has done in the changes is given her a hand down and has knocked her down. She is a hardworking individual. She feels she is now being punished by the Harris government for trying to get off welfare. She has no one else in Ontario to support her. She is taking care of herself and her children.

Minister, what do you say to April and others like her who as a result of your change have gone through two or three years of university and now may be forced to quit and rely on welfare for the rest of their lives? Where is that hand up, Minister? Where is that hand up that you promised to April and others during the election, which you've now taken away from her?

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to revisit the document that was tabled by the government last Thursday where they talk about their business plan. I particularly want to speak to what they're going to do with the Ministry of Labour.

This government of course already has a track record of introducing and passing, without any public consultation whatsoever, the anti-worker Bill 7, where they gutted the employee wage protection program, again made scabbing legal in the province of Ontario, and took away successor rights, an issue which they did not talk about in the campaign and which they had no mandate to do. They've already killed the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Under Bill 15, they took away workers' rights to 50% representation on the board of the WCB. We also know the Jackson report is out there and it's planning to gut benefits and entitlement that innocent workers injured on the job are entitled to.

Now what do we see in this document? We see an opening of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the context of saving $8.2 billion and we see opening up the Employment Standards Act in the context of saving $2.4 million. We also see closing the ministry library and eliminating the Joint Steering Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Workplace.

The track record is there to look at. The plans for the future are there to look at. Can there be any doubt by anyone in the province of Ontario that this government's agenda is anti-worker and they're going to go after workers' rights until they have none left?

WOMEN OF EXCELLENCE

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Today I'd like to add my congratulations and those of the government to five outstanding women who last evening received Women of Excellence awards from the Chatham-Kent YMCA. This was the first time these awards were presented, and the five recipients were certainly well chosen for the honour.

Delores Shadd was recognized for her outstanding contribution to rural life. As the women's adviser in Ontario for the National Farmers Union, she has attended national and international conferences on women.

Anne Coulter, executive director of family services, Kent, was honoured in the community and volunteer category for her community work on various boards and committees.

The sport, fitness and recreation award went to Shae-Lynn Bourne. She and partner Victor Kraatz have been Canadian ice dance champions for four years, are holders of the bronze medal in the World Figure Skating Championships, and will be competing in the 1998 Olympics.

Internationally heralded country music singer Michelle Wright received the award for her contributions to art and culture.

Ida Goodreau, formerly of Ridgetown, received a business, professions and trades award. The first female executive at Union Gas, she is now CEO of the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co in New Zealand.

I'm sure all members join me in applauding the achievements of these Women of Excellence and the Chatham-Kent YMCA for honouring them.

SCIENCE NORTH

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This government's assault on Science North is beyond belief. Their record of events and reductions speaks volumes.

In September, Science North's base operating grant was cut by 3%. In November, they experienced another 7% cut, for a total reduction of 10% over the course of this fiscal year. In January, Science North's outreach grant from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines was not renewed and, as a result, Science North's operating grant suffered total cuts equalling 17.4%. No other tourism attraction in Ontario has experienced such a deep cut. The most recent blow to this northern attraction is another $147,500 cut from the fiscal year next year.

The cuts already announced mean: seven fewer full-time positions; five contract positions not renewed; hiring of summer students cut by 10%; outreach services to the northwest decreased by 50%; discovery camps eliminated; the Path of Discovery tour eliminated; teacher workshops to enhance science education eliminated. The north is worried about these cuts and this government's direction with regard to Science North.

Will the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines meet with us, as requested? We've sent you letters. We haven't got a response. Do you care? Will you meet with us? Will you share our concerns and will you be sympathetic?

CROWN LAND CAMPING FEES

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Terrace Bay in the great riding of Lake Nipigon is home to the North of Superior Marina Marketing Association. This group is dedicated to promoting the North Shore of Lake Superior as a cruising destination for boaters, particularly American boaters.

Now the Ministry of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines plans to charge a crown land camping permit fee to non-resident boaters who drop anchor in Canadian waters. Last summer, several American boaters were stopped along the shore of Lake Superior by MNR and told that they were expected to pay this fee. Interestingly enough, it is only being collected north of the French River. Americans cruising in Georgian Bay and Americans cruising in Muskoka will pay no such fee.

Any enforcement of this discriminatory regulation will obviously destroy the economic development and marketing efforts of communities in my riding to promote the North Shore as the best and most obvious place to do boating in the province of Ontario.

I do hope that we will be treated fairly. This statement asks the government that competition be allowed. We feel that is commonsensical. Let's level the playing field.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a point of personal explanation, Mr Speaker: This morning during private members' business debate on ballot item number 21 on the subject of cancer prevention, a subject too close to my immediate family, I closed my comments with these words:

"Frankly, I think you'd have to be out of your mind to vote against this resolution."

I apologize to my colleagues on all sides of this House for that comment. I believe in apologizing when I'm wrong.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Today is the last day for the current group of pages. I know all members will join with me in thanking the pages for the dedicated service to us members during their term here.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I also observe we have a former member of the Legislature in the east gallery, Mr James Taylor, member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CORPS D'ÉLITE ONTARIO AWARDS

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): It is my privilege to welcome three special visitors to the Legislature today. With us in the members' gallery are this year's recipients of the Corps d'Élite Ontario Award, our province's highest distinction in the field of recreation. They are Wesley Luke Ogden of Welland, Jocelyn Palm of Willowdale, and Dorothy Walter of Toronto.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Corps d'Élite Ontario Award, which honours outstanding recreation volunteers and professionals from across Ontario. On the eve of National Volunteer Week, which begins Sunday, April 21, it is wonderful to be able to recognize and honour people who donate time and energy to share the joy of sports and recreation with everyone, from children to seniors. This government acknowledges the vital contribution that volunteers make to our communities and to society as a whole.

Participation in sports and recreational activities benefits us all. It promotes a healthy lifestyle and contributes to our physical and emotional wellbeing. Participation builds stronger communities, bringing the diverse members of our society together in pursuit of common interests. It is a significant factor in youth crime prevention and in enhancing academic performance.

Volunteerism is also an essential component of a strong recreation system. We know, for example, that there are about 660,000 sport and recreation volunteers in Ontario. Together, these volunteers spend $300 million each year in out-of-pocket expenses. This is in addition to the $2.3 billion which is the estimated value of their labour.

The 1995 recipients of the Corps d'Élite Ontario Award have recognized the tremendous value of these benefits and have devoted countless hours of time and effort in both professional and volunteer capacities. They have demonstrated leadership, determination and commitment in working with local, provincial, national and international organizations to improve our recreation and sports system and strengthen its ability to address community needs and concerns.

For the energy, creativity and perseverance they have brought to this task, for their personal sacrifice and their sense of duty they deserve both our gratitude and our respect.

Later this afternoon, these three distinguished individuals will receive their award in a ceremony presided over by the Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I would now ask that Wesley Luke Ogden, Jocelyn Palm and Dorothy Walter stand in the members' gallery while the honourable members please join me in showing our appreciation to these special Ontarians and to all the recreational professionals and volunteers who contribute so profoundly to the quality of life in this province.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Wesley Luke, Jocelyn and Dorothy, let me congratulate you on doing something that doesn't happen here very often: me agreeing with the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Certainly I too, on behalf of my fellow colleagues in the Liberal Party and caucus, would like to congratulate you and thank you.

Having been a teacher for 31 years, I like to try to relate every experience to an educational experience, so let me address for a second a few remarks to the pages, who will be travelling back to their home towns and cities after today, the David Hamiltons of the world, who will be going back to Sudbury, to St Francis school, and the other students who will be going back to their grade 7 and 8 classrooms.

Please, you may have seen, over the course of your stay here, things that you don't want to bring back as an example, but when you look at those three individuals in the gallery, I want you to remember, that is the reason your parents have allowed you to share in this experience. They want you to receive the example which will best be able to allow you the opportunities to contribute to society.

These people have demonstrated how important it is, one, to make an individual and a personal difference, but two, how important it is to be giving of oneself in order to share their experiences, their expertise and their abilities to communicate with others so that they can make others make a difference. That is the lesson that I hope we would be learning from these three very, very dedicated and talented Ontarians.

These people want you and all Ontarians to understand that it is important to contribute, it is important to share, it is important to say, "I have time for my fellow human being because I care about my fellow human being."

The reward you will receive today is certainly prestigious, but in fact, because of your years of volunteer service and because of your dedication, you know the biggest rewards that you've received have been the way you have affected the lives of those people you've come in contact with, and for that reason, I congratulate you and all the Liberal members congratulate you. You are deserving of your award.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to separate my comments into two parts: One, to praise the program and to congratulate the recipients, and the second

part is to attack the government.

On the first point, we have a long history and tradition of strong leadership and excellent programming. Sports and recreation contribute to the quality of life, as the minister has said. We agree with that. It contributes to healthy living for individuals and communities because it reduces the Ontario health care budget, and we agree with that. It has tremendous economic impact in the province, and we also agree with that. She also adds another important point that I agree with, and that is, it's a significant factor in youth crime prevention in enhancing academic performance, and we agree with all of that.

As we do that, we thank and congratulate those individuals who take time from their many other activities of life to make this kind of contribution in sports and recreation that we believe contributes to healthy living, and we congratulate them for all of that. But there is an underbelly to this announcement and that's what I want to speak to as my second part of this announcement.

The second part relates to the budget that goes in supporting provincial sport and recreation activities. That budget was $16 million or so and they have cut 35.2% out of that budget. That's the underbelly of this announcement.

So while on the one hand we praise individuals for contributing to sports and recreation and we thank them, because it's an important part of citizenship; while on the one hand we say that and we say how important it is to our economy, to our healthy living because it reduces the health care cost and it contributes to the quality of life in general -- while we say that, how can we take over $6 million out of that budget for sports and recreation? I think it's wrong. The future of sports and recreation is being threatened by the actions of this government.

Sports and recreation groups, professional staff, coaches and participants are very fearful that the budget cuts will affect the future of their sports.

So while I thank and congratulate these three people, recipients of the corps d'élite program, Wesley Luke Ogden, Jocelyn Palm and Dorothy Walter, the people of Ontario, I believe, deserve better from this government and this ministry as it relates particularly to support for provincial sports and recreational activities.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I too want to extend congratulations to Ms Walter and Ms Palm, and especially I want to speak about Wes Ogden because Wes Ogden, of course, is the dean of recreation in Welland, down there in Niagara region. Wes Ogden built the Welland recreation department. He, as a member of a team in the city of Welland, worked with a succession of city councils. I was fortunate enough to be in one of those councils from 1985 to 1988, and I tell you, Wes Ogden is the type of committed person who did not know work hours, did not know workdays of the week.

It was a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day operation. He built that recreation department from the ground up and developed a team of people around him, volunteers and other staff people, who were committed and dedicated not only to Wes but to recreation in the city as a whole.

One can't speak too much about his contribution to important civic events like the Welland Rose Festival, and the fact that Wes Ogden would be out there at 6 am Sunday morning, Saturday morning, whenever he was called upon, providing the leadership and doing the grunt work as well.

I can't think of anybody who is a more fitting recipient of this award. It's not insignificant at all that it was the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association that nominated Wes. That illustrates the high regard in which he's held not only in his own community, among the citizens of that good part of Ontario, but by Ontarians and even people beyond Ontario as well.

I congratulate all three recipients, but I make special note of Wes Ogden, a most fitting recipient and one of those people about whom Wellanders are extremely proud. God bless you, Wes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time has expired. Oral questions.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER AND MINISTERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand the Premier was scheduled to be present in question period today and is in the building. I would like to request a recess of five