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

November 26, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L060A - Thu 26 Nov 1998 / Jeu 26 Nov 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

HURRICANE RELIEF

EDUCATION FUNDING

AUGUSTO PINOCHET

FRED WEST

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

STEEL INDUSTRY

HAMILTON SEEKERS VOLLEYBALL CLUB

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORK INDUSTRY

CANCER TREATMENT

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

AIR QUALITY

PORK INDUSTRY

LANDFILL

SCHOOL BOARD DISPUTE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PALLIATIVE CARE

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ROAD SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PALLIATIVE CARE

ROAD SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Patten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): The member for Ottawa Centre has 10 minutes.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I am pleased today to speak to Bill 78. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the admission of a person to a psychiatric facility for assessment, to deal with people who are caught in a revolving-door syndrome, in and out hospital, never adequately treated. A person who suffers from such a mental disorder may be admitted to a psychiatric facility on an involuntary basis if his or her substitute decision-maker consents to the admission.

The bill also provides for patients to be allowed to live outside of the psychiatric facility under a leave agreement, sometimes referred to as a community treatment order.

My bill is based on the following principles:

Persons who suffer from severe mental illness such as schizophrenia should have the right to access the medical treatment they require as early in the course of their illness as possible.

Treatment should occur in the least restrictive environment possible.

Treatment should also be tailored to the needs of the individual.

There remains a need for involuntary hospitalization because of the reality of severe mental disorder.

Everyone requiring treatment in the absence of their consent does not need to be detained in a hospital in order to receive such treatment.

Bill 78 is an improvement in two ways on my original Bill 111, which was passed on second reading but died on the order paper. The first is the addition of a fourth criterion for involuntary admission, which is only done by a physician, for psychiatric assessment. The second is the addition of a leave agreement. The bill will still remove the words "imminent and" from serious impairment of the person, as did Bill 111. The widely acknowledged problem with the word "imminent" is its narrow and varied

interpretations, causing difficulty.

Since introducing my first bill, many things have happened that have reinforced my intention to reintroduce a strengthened bill. These are:

(1) Meetings that I have had with several organizations, groups and individuals, including representatives of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario as the core group.

(2) The recommendations of two inquests that I testified at, the Brian Smith inquest in Ottawa and the Kovalskyj-England inquest in Ajax, both of which supported my bill and also recommended a community treatment provision in the act.

(3) New research available, particularly confirming the importance of early detection and intervention, and research on new pharmacological therapies.

(4) The closure of psychiatric beds and the rationalizing of mental health services as a result of the report of the health restructuring commission.

(5) The publicity surrounding the recent Edmond Yu inquest, which brought to light that the severely mentally ill risk being the victims of violent death by police. In Toronto, five mentally ill patients were shot and killed by police between the years 1988 and 1997.

I am mindful of the consultative review undertaken by Dan Newman, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, and the recommendations therein, which include a complete review of the Mental Health Act and related legislation by the government. Unfortunately, the severely mentally ill, who are subjected to the revolving-door syndrome, and their loved ones cannot wait for a comprehensive review of the act.

Individuals with serious and chronic mental illness acting in a dangerous manner after not getting their treatment needs met are dying by their own hands, or sometimes by the hands of others, as in the case of Edmond Yu, 35, shot by police. Many others are involved in incidents of illness-driven violence. Recent cases include:

Alistair Deighton Jr, shot and killed by his mentally ill father, January 1995.

Brian Smith, popular CJOH sportscaster, gunned down August 1, 1995, in Ottawa.

Jennifer Kovalskyj-England, age 6, stabbed 69 times by her stepfather, April 2, 1996, Bowmanville.

Marian Johnston, Jennifer's grandmother, stabbed 34 times by her son and Jennifer's father, April 2, 1996, Bowmanville.

Mona Hamilton, an elderly woman, stabbed outside a downtown bus stop in Ottawa in July 1996.

I can go on and on. This list is not exhaustive but serves to illustrate recent cases that were subject to a lot of media attention.

Families often carry the burden of care, trying to protect their adult offspring. They live under tremendous stress, sometimes involving potentially violent situations when the options for accessing care are limited when the person does not believe they are ill and refuses treatment.

I would like to read part of a letter to me from Dr Heather Milliken, a psychiatrist with 18 years of clinical practice providing care to individuals with schizophrenia and their families.

"It is now recognized based on neuropsychological research that schizophrenia is an illness which can cause significant cognitive impairment. In particular, insight and judgment can be severely impaired. Amador in the United States conducted a study which found that almost 50% of patients suffering from schizophrenia did not acknowledge having any kind of mental disorder. This lack of awareness of suffering from a mental disorder is not merely psychological denial but rather is felt to reflect underlying disturbances in brain function.

What this means, however, is that individuals - because they do not appreciate or acknowledge having an illness - do not seek nor do they accept treatment voluntarily....

"For the majority of patients it has been shown that each recurrent episode has a characteristic `signature,' ie, the progression of signs and symptoms follows a similar pattern each time. It is therefore possible to predict for those who know the patient well, ie, family members and their treatment team, the pattern of physical or mental deterioration that will occur.

I am told that the newer anti-psychotic drugs on the market that are more expensive but have reduced side effects are not yet part of the provincial government formulary unless older drugs have been tried first. I ask you, are migraine sufferers forced to use older drugs before they can access the newer, more effective ones? We must have the highest quality and best use of medication. Not only is it inhuman, but it also creates a false economy. Patients discarding unpleasant, older medicines and repeating the cycle all over again end up being far more costly than the newer in the end.

With the coming trend towards outpatient and community psychiatric care, four other provinces already have established community treatment and a fifth is in the process of establishing it.

On June 3, the Minister of Health announced $60 million for expanding mental health services and the launch of a review of the mental health legislation. Media reports indicate that to date only $20 million has so far been allocated. We need the full allocation now and about five times that amount over the long haul.

As human rights critic for my party, I'd like to comment briefly on the right to refuse treatment and individual and public safety. We have a system that gives patients the right to treatment, but patients also have the right to refuse treatment. This is the rub. Many people who have a severe mental illness refuse treatment because they don't believe they are ill. The cost of withholding treatment, however, is often permanent damage. Medication can often free victims from their illness and restore their dignity, their free will and the meaningful exercise of their liberties.

I would like to quote from Hershel Hardin, former director of the BC Civil Liberties Association and active with Amnesty International in defence of liberty and free speech. He says:

"More and more people are showing up in the streets in need of help. Incidents of `illness-driven violence' are reported regularly. People ask, `Why don't we provide help and treatment when the need is so obvious?' Every cry of anguish is answered by, `Unrequested intervention is an infringement of civil liberties.' This stops everything. The rhetoric and the lobbying results in legislative obstacles to timely and adequate treatment. The psychiatric community is cowed by the anti-treatment climate. Far from respecting civil liberties, legal obstacles to treatment limit or destroy the liberty of the person."

I'm very aware of the charter protection rights such as the right to liberty, the right not to be detained arbitrarily and the right to security of the person. Limits on charter-protected rights must be clearly justifiable. It is important to recognize that persons have the right to be treated by the health care system especially if they are not capable of making that decision for themselves. My bill is for this very small group of people with very restricted criteria who have fallen through the cracks.

I believe people have a right to be healthy. We have an obligation to help severely mentally ill persons and their families access medical care when they need it. I don't see this as a partisan issue. As Selina Volpatti, president of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario said, "This is not a political issue; it is a health issue and an issue of saving lives."

I'd like to read part of a letter from a constituent:

"I am 54 years old and this is the first time in my life that I write to a politician to ask for action. I am the mother of a 23-year-old bright, lively, wonderful son who saw his world collapse with schizophrenia two years ago.

"My son has required three hospitalizations in 15 months. His last hospitalization followed a failed suicide attempt. My numerous discussions with the dedicated doctors and nurses in psychiatric care as well as my first-hand experience with my own son make me realize that the Mental Health Act in its present form is not protecting the ill person against their own illness."

I would also like to point out that I have a letter here from Michael and Maureen Cassidy. Michael, a former leader of the NDP party, is asking all members to support Bill 78 "when it comes to second reading vote under private members' business in the Legislature this Thursday. Although this bill was prepared by Richard Patten, a Liberal MPP, I believe it contains long-needed changes to the way Ontario law treats people with serious mental illness, and deserves support from MPPs of all parties."

Time is running out; I have much more to say and my colleagues will join in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to listen to my colleagues in this House and their points of view on the importance of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Nice to see you in the chair this morning, Mr Speaker. Let me say at the outset, to be clear, I am not supporting this bill this morning. I think all of the members in the House have agonized to some extent over this bill because of the conflicting interests that we have to consider.

I've talked to a variety of people to try to come to my own conclusion about where I stand. I have notes here from the Queen Street Patients Council, and I'm sure that the member for Ottawa Centre has seen or talked to some of the people who are advocates for the mentally ill about their views on this. Perhaps later when he speaks he can clarify this.

But I'm hearing time and time again that the Mental Health Act already allows for people, as the member for Ottawa Centre says, the very small percentage of people who could be considered dangerous to themselves or to their families, to society, the Mental Health Act already has that ability. The problem is that most people, including the majority of doctors, don't understand this, don't know the Mental Health Act well enough, and society as a whole doesn't know that that power is already there.

It occurs to me that if that's the case, what we're doing here, if this bill is allowed to pass, is opening up the door to forced treatments, to forced hospitalization and the so-called leash treatment on people who might not or should not be considered within this category. I know, for instance, that here within the Toronto area over the years the homeless community - I find this a bit of a parody of words - has been growing. Some people like to say that people are on the street because they're mentally ill and they're getting kicked out or can't maintain a home or whatever. In fact, the evidence shows that it's the other way around.

What I'm really worried about here is that we're taking the approach that what we have to do is go out - because we're not, as a society, providing the kinds of support that people need to help them stay healthy, and they have been deteriorating over the past few years, as we well know, especially in terms of housing, but in terms of other services they need as well. There's all kinds of evidence which shows that many people who end up on the street and stay on the street are there because of housing crises, because they can't get a job, because the supports aren't there. If the supports were there to help them, they would be in at least reasonable health.

A lot of the people on the streets, because they don't have those supports or they've been ripped out from under them and they have nowhere to turn - if you don't have a home to live in, a roof over your head, a way to make a living, if you're not a part of a community, then of course I would say that you're going to get sicker and sicker.

We know that there's evidence, and I know Mr Patten mentioned, that there are new drugs and those drugs should be made far more accessible than they are, but they have horrific side effects. I know the mother of a young schizophrenic man. I know and have seen the results, the horrible side effects from some of those drugs. You've got to think, when you see those side effects sometimes, which is worse? I would say that based on my experience with this young man he's not a danger to society.

It's true, as Mr Patten said, that most psychiatric survivors and people who are mentally ill are not a danger. It's very difficult in many cases for scientists and doctors to figure out who's a danger or not, but in some categories and some cases, yes. Parents with adult schizophrenic children and other children with mental illnesses - I know that there are cases where parents are having very difficult times. I acknowledge that. It seems to me, though - and if there's dispute about this I'd like to hear it - that those powers for those people already exist.

I am very worried that what we're doing here today is opening up the door for the power of the state to go out and start rounding up people who are not dangerous, who are in dire straits, and instead of as a society giving them the supports they need, we take this very punitive approach, where we start forcing drugs on their bodies, we start taking away their freedom, which I believe is a human right.

What I would like to see us as a Legislature doing is looking at the Mental Health Act. I've talked to the Queen Street Patients Council and others. If those conditions already exist under the Mental Health Act, why aren't we just making sure doctors understand them, that they're being used properly and that the people who really need this what I consider very draconian approach to their illness - I would agree and we all would agree that sometimes in order to protect people, to protect families, to protect communities, there may need to be, in some cases, draconian measures, but if that's already within the Mental Health Act, why in heaven's name are we doing this today?

I would suggest to the member that the most positive route to take today is to look at the kind of support systems that have been ripped out from under people, to look at homelessness and to urge the present government to get back into providing affordable housing, providing housing for the mentally ill. Rooming houses, for instance, where a lot of mentally ill psychiatric survivors live, are not regulated in any way. We hear horrific stories of what happens to people in some of these houses. In fact they prefer, in some cases, to end up on the street.

As I said, I am not supporting this bill. I look forward to the comments from other people and I look forward to Mr Patten's response to the very strong suggestion, very strong statement that the power in the bill he's putting forward today already exists and that this is unnecessary and is a very dangerous step we're taking, if we pass this, in terms of impinging on a lot of people's human rights.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's certainly my pleasure to join the debate today on Bill 78. I'd like to begin by commending the member for Ottawa Centre for his ongoing dedication and commitment to the issues of mental health. His efforts have once again brought us to this Legislative Assembly to discuss and debate amendments to the Mental Health Act.

There are several important issues that the member for Ottawa Centre has recognized and included in Bill 78 that I would like to acknowledge today. For example, Bill 78 attempts to rectify the misunderstandings of the term "imminent" in several sections of the current Mental Health Act; Bill 78 re-examines the criteria for involuntary psychiatric assessment and admission to psychiatric facilities; and last, Bill 78 examines the need to develop effective alternatives to involuntary hospitalization.

Overall, Bill 78 is an improvement from the member's previous bill, Bill 111. However, this bill is not consistent with our government's current mental health reform strategy. Earlier this year the Minister of Health, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, asked me to conduct a comprehensive review of the mental health system in Ontario. I met with stakeholders and received feedback on what was and what was not working in Ontario's mental health system.

In my review, a number of common themes emerged that I thought our government must address to reform the mental health system in Ontario. In these themes, I identified several key issues that became the basis for my recommendations to Minister Witmer. What I did not hear during my consultations was, "If you amend the Mental Health Act, everything will be fine." I didn't hear that once.

What I did hear was that a reform of the mental health system in Ontario must ensure that individuals with a serious mental illness have access to a broad range of services and supports that are appropriate to their specific condition and level of need. I also heard that mental health legislation should not only reflect the needs of the individuals, but also reflect the goals of the system.

That is why I recommended that our government create an integrated and coordinated system of mental health services that will provide a continuum of care for those with serious mental illness.

That is why I recommended that our government should (1) create an integrated and coordinated system, (2) ensure dedicated funding for the mental health system and (3) immediately begin an aggressive education campaign aimed at clarifying the intent and application of the Mental Health Act and related legislation.

More specifically, that is why I recommended that our government immediately begin a review of the Mental Health Act and related legislation and that any changes to the legislation must reflect the following fundamental principles: that legislation supports our government's creation of an integrated and coordinated mental health system capable of providing a continuum of care from prevention to in-hospital and community-based treatment; that legislation allows those who need mental health services in Ontario to access those services where and when they need them; and that legislation ensures public safety.

Unfortunately, Bill 78 is not consistent with our government's current mental health reform strategy. There is a need in Ontario for a strong legislative framework that will move mental health reform forward, and Bill 78 is not quite enough.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill raises a number of important issues. However, Bill 78 is too narrow in its focus of involuntary assessment and admission to psychiatric facilities and compulsory treatment, and it does not address mental health service delivery and access to service issues.

The community treatment proposal in Bill 78 does not address access to mental health services and supports. Legislation and accessible community supports go hand in hand.

Finally, Bill 78 uses vague and unexplained language such as "medical treatment" and "serious deterioration" that will lead to confusion and inconsistencies in the

interpretation and application of the act and will lead to possible legal challenges.

These are critical points with respect to mental health legislation, but they are not addressed in Bill 78.

Our government recognizes the need for a strong legislative framework that is consistent with mental health reform. In fact, so do our stakeholders. This past Tuesday, I had the opportunity to meet with the Provincial Advisory Committee on Mental Health. They told me unequivocally that it is crucial to stay on course with the current plan for mental health reform. More specifically, they emphasized the importance of fulfilling our promise to conduct a comprehensive review of all mental health legislation and not to get bogged down with the first or second proposal that came along.

As a result, our government has taken several necessary steps that will ensure that mental health services are provided in a manner that is supported by a strong legislative framework. For example, Minister Witmer announced that $60 million would be allocated to enhance access to mental health services across the province. I'm pleased to say that $31.1 million of that is being spent to increase community-based mental health services across our province.

An important initiative is currently underway, and that's an extensive education program designed to inform mental health professionals, criminal justice officials, consumers and families about current mental health legislation. This campaign will provide important feedback for our government on the existing Mental Health Act and areas which may need to be revised. This campaign is being led by Michael Bay, the chair of the Consent and Capacity Board.

Lastly, our government has developed an implementation plan for mental health reform that outlines a mental health strategy for this province. These initiatives are fundamental to mental health reform. More important, they illustrate the necessary steps that must be taken to ensure that legislation is indeed consistent with reform. Bill 78 is not consistent with current mental health reform, and I will not be supporting it.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 78, and I want to applaud my colleague for his continuing sensitivity to these important issues.

I don't want to use a lot of time today; I do want to address a couple of issues that have been raised. First of all, I will be supporting this bill. I get concerned when I hear the kind of language of debate that I heard from the member for Riverdale. This bill is not about leashing people; it's not about putting them away. This bill is about access to treatment; it's about how people who suffer very seriously have difficulties accessing treatment.

I'd like to read a quote from Dr Heather Milliken, the associate professor and director of continuing education in the department of psychiatry at Dalhousie University. She says:

"The proposed amendments to the Ontario mental health legislation are consistent with changes occurring throughout America. This does not represent, as some might argue, a retrogressive step backwards to the era of asylums, but rather represents a step towards ensuring that individuals who suffer from brain disorders such as schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness who as a result of the nature of their disorder are in certain cases unable to recognize they are ill and who therefore fail to access treatment are provided access to treatments which are effective and which they have a right to receive.

Even with the proposed amendments, the Ontario Mental Health Act will continue to have narrower criteria for involuntary admission than other provinces."

What that says is that this is a question of the right of a person to treatment. It says that even with these amendments Ontario will still have a narrow definition of when somebody can be admitted involuntarily.

For nine years prior to being elected to the Legislative Assembly, I was the administrator of an alcohol and drug recovery program in Windsor called Brentwood. Every day on an ongoing basis we saw at our front door people who could not access treatment, who didn't know they were sick, who weren't on their meds. This is a result of years and years of deinstitutionalization, of failing to provide. The parliamentary assistant to the minister spoke about consultations and about this and about that. The reality is, more people are on the street sicker who are not able to recognize they need treatment or can't simply access it. We saw it every day at Brentwood.

This is a responsible approach to a difficult question that will leave Ontario with a well-defined methodology for dealing with these issues that does not, in my view, unfairly prejudice the rights of those who are stricken by these unfortunate situations. I support this bill. I challenge the government to quit talking about reforms and consultations and changes, when they in fact haven't done anything, and support this bill, which is well defined, which leaves us with a narrower

interpretation than most other provinces but still affords those who need it access to treatment in a fair and responsible fashion.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I just want to begin by saying that I have no doubt that the intentions of the member who introduced Bill 78, the member for Ottawa Centre, are based on good motives and a desire to protect people. I'm assuming the member for Windsor-Walkerville feels the same. He said he's concerned about what the member for Riverdale said and that this bill is not about putting people away but is about access to treatment and all that. I'm not sure that he might be fully aware necessarily of what is contained in the bill, but I'm not sure that's entirely it.

While I have no doubt, again, about the intentions, when I listen to people from Queen Street Patients Council and the mental health legal committee and others, I do have serious concerns about the potential effects of Bill 78 on consumers themselves, on people who suffer mental illness. There's no doubt that the families of people who suffer mental illness feel strongly about needing to find better and greater supports and solutions to the problems their family members might be having. There's no doubt about that at all.

I must tell you I am lucky enough not to have had this problem in my own family or extended family. That doesn't mean that we're insensitive to the rights of those individuals and to the rights of the general public in terms of the effects that they might have on themselves and the public, but we have to balance out rights for individuals who suffer mental illness with the rights of the public and, to a great extent, the rights of families as well. We do. Whether Bill 78 is that bill, I'm not entirely certain.

Queen Street Patients Council says, "It's shocking that Ontario doctors are so ignorant of the law that they lobby for powers that already exist." Is that true or not? I'm not entirely sure of that except that the mental health legal committee argues that these laws already exist in law, and do we need additional language that simply would widen the criteria for involuntary admission of individuals with mental illness to a psychiatric facility? I don't believe we do.

While I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that the language that is proposed in this bill could lead to legal challenges, as some of them propose, and while I agree that the language is somewhat vague, I'm not entirely sure about what they are about to propose or could propose by way of changes to the Mental Health Act. I am worried about what they have done in the past and worried about what they might introduce. So while I am in some agreement with what the member said, I worry about the changes they're likely to introduce themselves.

Part of the problem is that in Ontario we've had a few cases of violence by disturbed people and they have of course resulted in tremendous publicity, no doubt about that, leading a whole lot of politicians and members of the public to wonder whether or not existing laws are in place and/or existing supports are in place to protect them from themselves and from the general public. I read an interesting statistic, again given by the Queen Street Patients Council, that says, "In truth almost all crime, about 96%, is committed by `sane' people."

When we listen to some of the stories in the media of problems committed by those who suffer mental illness, they create the impression that there's a whole lot of crime committed by them, and that unduly discriminates against individuals who suffer mental illness. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

What we need to do, and what the mental health legal committee recommends, is that we apply the law as it exists and apply it correctly, and make sure that people advocating for change understand what is currently in law before they propose criteria that expand the powers of certain individuals to put away those who suffer from mental illness and force them to take medication that some of them do not want to take.

The member for Riverdale pointed out that the side effects of some of these drugs are egregious. I read a whole page of side effects that some of these drugs have on individuals and, in my view, they are horrific. I've never had to take them, so I wouldn't know. But you have to take guidance from consumer-survivors who have gone through it and talk to us about some of the problems these drugs have had on their lives. Many of them argue that the side effects of these drugs have made their problems worse, not better. Who do we take guidance from? Yes, from consumer-survivors, and yes, to a great extent from those who treat them. It's a question of finding the appropriate balance.

What we desperately need is to deal with an underfunded in-patient mental health system, similarly engaging the individual in consensual care where the individual requires and requests this, and providing housing, employment and other income maintenance and support to allow for a comfortable quality of life for the individual. Those supports are desperately lacking, and unless we deal with that, we focus on how we can put these people away for their own good and for the good of the general public, and I believe that's wrong.

I won't be supporting Bill 78.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I'd like to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for his concern and for bringing his concern forward in this particular bill, Bill 78. I can't exactly agree with it, but I agree with the concerns he has for mental health here in the province.

Too often we take for granted our health, whether it be mental health or other aspects of our health. Maybe it's related to my age, but I seem to be running into an awful lot of people my age who have children in their twenties who are schizophrenic, and as you hear their stories and tales you empathize with them. It's a kind of cross to bear that most of us shouldn't have to carry.

There have been tremendous advances in therapies in the last few decades to help people with mental illness to lead productive lives. Yes, I'm hearing and I'm aware that there are some side effects, but many of these pharmaceutical preparations help these people tremendously.

There's no question that the government is committed to a strong legislative framework that will protect the mentally ill. The changes that we make as we move along should be consistent with some of the government's direction, and Bill 78 isn't exactly consistent with the directions we're currently going in.

There's no question that people with mental illness need to have access to services. That's unquestionable. They need the supports in the community and they also need to be left with some individual choice and not always be caught in a corner.

To accomplish this, the minister has directed staff in the Ministry of Health to review the Mental Health Act and to look at the related legislation to ensure that there will be an integrated and coordinated system to provide for these patients so that they will have a seamless continuum of care.

Also, they're developing an implementation plan for mental health.

There's an educational campaign for mental health that's tremendously important, and also through this to have a very strong feedback mechanism.

The ministry and the minister are taking steps to ensure that these things happen, particularly the seamless continuum of care for the mentally ill.

I'm very pleased to comment that the parliamentary assistant, Mr Newman from Scarborough Centre, has gone out and there's been extensive consultation for mental health throughout the province. A reference was made a few minutes ago that consultation was needed, that there was a lack of consultation. That certainly is not true. Mr Newman has been out with extensive consultation throughout the province.

I commend the member for his concerns and bringing this forward, but I for one will not be able to support it.

Just in winding up, to leave a bit of time for my good friend Mr Klees, who will be speaking later, I'll draw a quick comparison. In the bill that was brought in by Mr Wildman, the member for Algoma and previous Minister of Environment, he wanted increased penalties for improper handling of waste. The idea was good, but it's only part of what needs to be done; it's only part of the overall plan. You will note that just on Monday the minister, the Honourable Norm Sterling, brought in Bill 82, which is all-inclusive. It will cover the total Environmental Protection Act.

It will deal with the Pesticides Act and also the Ontario Water Resources Act. This is looking at it as an umbrella and covering all aspects of increased penalties and giving priorities to the importance of the environment; similarly with mental health, as I look at this Bill 78.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Although I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill 78, my colleague from Ottawa Centre's Act to amend the Mental Health Act, I must say to all the members of this Legislature that I've had much difficulty in determining how I would vote on this particular piece of legislation.

Since first being elected in 1995, I've been humbled by the fact that we as legislators are continually asked to rise in this House and vote on legislation that can have and has had a dramatic impact on real people all across the province. In some instances, I will admit that I've cast my vote with mixed feelings, without 100% assurance within myself that the legislation we are pondering is absolutely good or absolutely bad.

My rule of thumb has been and will be to consider, how will the legislation affect the people I represent? Will it improve their lives? Is it legislation that has long-term value? Is it legislation that takes into consideration the best interests of us as individuals and as members of our society?

However, I will further admit that this particular government's legislative agenda has made this responsibility generally somewhat easier. Much of what the government has done I vigorously oppose, as the litmus test I've applied has come out strongly on the negative side.

Today the task is not nearly so clear or so simple. Mind you, I do not question the sincerity or the care with which my colleague has put together his private member's bill. Indeed, I applaud him for the tremendous courage he has shown by enabling this opportunity for debate on such a serious matter. I know my colleague has consulted widely, and he is probably more conscious than anyone of the potential ramifications of his legislation should it be passed, implemented and then become law.

Any legislation that compels individuals in our society to, in this case, potentially receive treatment against their will, must give us pause. The mere possibility that this tool could be used inappropriately or be seen as a quick fix is, I believe, a real concern. However, upon careful and somewhat painful reflection, I've come to the conclusion that Mr Patten's bill is worthy of support.

The fact is, we live in a society where the needs of the mentally ill are not considered a priority.

I've spoken on many occasions in the Legislature about the mistreatment of people who suffer from mental illnesses and about how the government, in its headlong rush to restructure the health care system, has created a very real and a very immediate crisis in mental health care; about the horrific fact that 10% of the inmates at district jails in my part of the province are people who need psychiatric care, not incarceration; about the fact that community support and all that entails is the key to helping people avoid the revolving door syndrome or frequent readmissions to hospitals or, indeed, prisons; and the fact that this government has failed miserably to ensure that community supports are in place before they have, for example, cut psychiatric beds.

I believe that more than ever, and I further believe that Bill 78, if it is accompanied by a comprehensive package of community-based treatment and support services, could be helpful to individuals suffering from mental illness, to the members of their families who see the suffering first-hand, and to society as a whole.

We've heard and read about many tragedies that might have been avoided if proper treatment had been taking place. If this legislation passes, with its clear intention to see that persons who suffer from severe mental illness have the right to access the medical treatment they require as early as possible and in the least restrictive environment possible, there may be future tragedies avoided.

There are still risks involved in taking the course of action prescribed by this legislation. I am pleased that my colleague has tailored this bill to reflect those concerns. Bill 78 makes it clear that treatment should be tailored to the needs of each individual. While involuntary hospitalization may be occasionally necessary, he has also made it clear that everyone requiring treatment does not need to be detained in a hospital in order to receive that treatment.

Regardless, there are still risks attached to the legislation, and legislation as sensitive as this. Therefore, I believe that any concerns we have about a potential misuse or overuse of this mandatory treatment must be accompanied by implementing needed safeguards and by ensuring that any orders are monitored closely, including more frequent mandatory review board decisions.

This legislation tackles a very difficult problem and does it in a manner that deserves our gratitude for the sensitivity with which it has been dealt. It is a question of balance, and it is one that I believe my colleague from Ottawa Centre has dealt with and managed in an extremely sensitive manner.

I will be supporting Bill 78 today.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise today. I want to say at the outset that I congratulate the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this very sensitive piece of legislation forward for debate this morning. I also want to say that I will be supporting this bill.

I have some reservations and there are some concerns, as have been expressed by other members of this House, over some of the terminology, the vagueness of some of the terms. I believe that the place for us to have this debate, in terms of refining this legislation, is in committee. I would very much like to see this bill be referred to a committee to debate not only this bill, but the whole issue of the importance of how we as a province and how we as a society deal with this important issue of mental health.

I believe that my colleague from Scarborough Centre has done an outstanding job in terms of consultations over the last number of months around this important issue. We've seen some significant improvements already in a number of areas of reinvestments on the part of the Ministry of Health. However, I want also to be very clear that I believe we have yet some distance to go in order to ensure that people in our society who suffer mental illness are dealt with adequately.

It's important for us as legislators to note that many precautions have been taken in this piece of legislation to ensure that people are dealt with in a compassionate and reasonable way. The legislation clearly states that the person must previously have received medical treatment for a mental disorder and responded well to those treatments. It goes on to say that the attending physician is of the opinion that the person is suffering from the same mental disorder as the one for which he or she previously received medical treatment, and that the person is likely to suffer serious deterioration if he or she does not receive medical treatment.

I submit to my colleagues in this House that if we are simply asking and conferring an authority on to physicians and those who have, by virtue of their authority, substitute decision-making responsibilities, the opportunity to prevent serious harm not only to the individual concerned but also to his or her loved ones, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate legislative framework is in place in this province for that to work.

I agree with my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health that this is not a stand-alone solution to the issue, that there must be other community supports, there must be an integrated and coordinated mental health system in this province - we're working towards that - but I also believe that this can form part and parcel of that integrated system within this province.

There are those who have labelled this philosophically to meet their political or personal ends, that this is a leash type of legislation. I don't believe that does credit to the intent of the member in bringing this forward. I don't believe it honours those for whom this piece of legislation is written. I believe that as a House we have a responsibility not to dismiss this legislation but to work with the member in committee to refine it, to improve it, and to ensure that the needs of those in our society who suffer mental health disorders are adequately met, that they're met in a timely order to their benefit and to the benefit of their loved ones.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am pleased to join the debate and congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for bringing forward this resolution today. I know he has put a great deal of effort and work into this. There already has been extensive consultation. I appreciate the tone that all members of the House are taking because this is a very difficult issue. It is not an easy issue.

I think the whole area of mental illness is one of the most complex, least understood things that we deal with today. It's not as easy as trying to deal with a physical ailment in the sense that someone needs surgery for some illness and it's done. People tend to understand what that's all about. But when it comes to mental illness, it's a much more difficult issue. It's one that is complex and one that most of us have experiences with in family members, relatives or friends who have gone through this very difficult situation.

You need to ensure that any legislation that deals with this is balanced and takes into consideration the rights of the individual and at the same time that fine line between forcing treatment, between forcing involuntary admission and stepping on civil liberties and the rights of individuals. It's a very difficult line to walk, and any legislation that can help to improve that I think is welcome by the consumers, by the families and by Ontarians as a whole.

The area I want to focus on briefly, and I'll leave a couple of minutes for my colleague, is that most individuals who suffer from mental illness are not a threat to themselves or to others. It's a very difficult situation, it's difficult for the family, but in most cases it is not a case of a threat. But there are situations where individuals, as a result of the illness, can cause harm to themselves or to others. This is what I'm hoping that this bill, even if it's a few situations that are critical here, can help address.

We've all heard the frustrations of family members who have a difficult time trying to get treatment or help for someone because a person refuses to take that treatment or that help, and know there is a potential for danger, know there is a potential for suicide, know there is a potential to harm other individuals.

What is glaring to me, coming from the community of Hamilton, is an incident that occurred in my own riding a couple of years ago. As a result of years and years of mental illness and difficulties that this woman was having, the family tried desperately to get this person into some type of treatment, tried desperately to get this person admitted to a facility because they knew she was in a difficult situation and could potentially harm herself or others. Unfortunately, this resulted in a tragedy where a two-year-old boy was stabbed with scissors and killed while playing in an alleyway beside the house.

When this tragedy occurred, it was not only a tragedy for the family, it tore out our hearts in our community to see this happen to that two-year-old boy. But what made it more difficult was later listening to the family of the woman who has been convicted of killing this two-year-old boy, the difficulties the family had in trying to get treatment and help for this woman. They believe today, as I do, that if there were more flexibility in legislation, in cases like this a family somehow could force admittance into a facility if there's a danger there.

It is available in the act today but the rules and conditions are so rigid that it often makes it very difficult. I believe, had this type of legislation been in place today, the tragedy of this two-year-old boy - and the inquest is going to start in Hamilton - would have been avoided.

I hope members look at this legislation in that compassionate, caring sense. It may not be perfect, it may need to be fixed a little bit, but I certainly believe it's a step in the right direction.

Mr Patten: I'd like to take a little bit of time to respond to some of my colleagues. I appreciate the comments made.

The first thing I'd like to say, in response to my friend from Riverdale, is that we've studied the bill and the bill has barriers. I'm told by families that bills have barriers. The word "imminent" is a barrier to understanding when you can treat someone. I'm asked by families and members who have friends with schizophrenia, "When does a physician make a determination of when someone is severely ill and imminently ill?" Often that is interpreted to mean right now, and it isn't. Psychiatrists pre-empt the board. They wait and they say, "The person isn't all that bad," and that encourages severe illness.

The longer persons suffer from psychosis, the more difficult it is to treat them and bring them back to where they presumably were before they suffered from the event - extremely important. So the medical evidence flies in the face of what the bill provides.

The other thing is that it provides only for a physician - I've heard people say, "The police can start rounding up people off the street." No way. They cannot do this. This is the most restrictive criterion of any particular jurisdiction that I'm aware of in Canada or in the United States, to be very specific and to deal with those who are in a revolving-door syndrome. That means they continue to go to hospital and two weeks later they're out. They go back into the community, there's no supervision, no support for them, they deteriorate again, they end up back in the hospital and this goes on and on.

That's what we're attempting to address. It moves from a model and a statute of this to a model of trying to provide care. All the safeguards that are in the bill now are still there, and in fact reinforced to protect the rights of people.

The other is that Ontario at the moment does not have a community treatment program. Most jurisdictions in North America - all the states in the US, five provinces in Canada - have what's called community treatment programs. These aren't ways of maintaining shackles on people; these are ways to get people, as quickly as possible, out of institutions and into an environment in which they have contact with family, with friends, with other people, and can do some things in a less restrictive manner but continue a particular program in which they can begin to heal again.

This is the most restrictive, as I say, because we're talking about dealing with a very small population of people who have lost their capacity. When we talk about civil liberties, I believe we have the right to treatment; people have a right to access to treatment. But when you lose capacity to be able to judge the consequences of your own decisions, you need to be supported in order to get treatment.

That is there in the bill now. The problem is that you have to wait until the eleventh hour, just before someone is about to commit suicide, or they actually do commit suicide, or they actually do beat someone else up, or they actually do threaten someone else severely. There is no room for understanding the pattern. Medical practitioners know that there is a pattern leading up to a particular episode that happens again and again and again; it's almost like a fingerprint. Why can't we acknowledge and see, with the safeguards we have, that the very best care system is able to treat people when they need it? The present bill does not do that.

This is not an answer for everything. It's an interim step. I support the government in reviewing the whole bill. This is one step along the way, and hopefully we can support it.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

Mr Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 80,

An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in Norfolk and Haldimand, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à éliminer le niveau régional du gouvernement municipal à Norfolk et à Haldimand ainsi que le double emploi et à faire réaliser des économies aux contribuables.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): It is with great pleasure that I move second reading of this bill. Let me say at the outset that I firmly believe this bill has its roots in the finest tradition of our democratic parliamentary process. It is in keeping with the wishes of over 10,000 of my closest advisers. They have all made the choice to sign a petition calling for the dismantling of regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Somebody said, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." I have been studying regional government in my area for 27 years now. Back when the region was just a gleam in some bureaucrat's eye, I helped conduct focus groups for the Earl Berger study. This study was commissioned by the government of the day to gauge people's reaction to the idea of regional government. The result: People didn't want regional government then and they don't want it now.

We can learn from the past. In 1971, during these focus groups, the fear most people mentioned at public meetings was that of higher taxes, and now in 1998, 27 years later, we have seen the highest property tax increase of any region in the province of Ontario. A 17.9% hike has been thrust on residents of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Now, 17.9% is a tax increase that residents cannot afford. A fellow from St Williams told regional council this fall of his difficulties: "I came down here hoping for some answers. I know you don't have any answers this morning, but my taxes have gone up to the point where I will have to go out of business and I will have to sell my property."

I want to read some other quotes, both from 1971 and 1998, then and now.

In 1971, a man from Caledonia, again at these focus groups: "I just think of more and more men up there doing less and less...and taxing the farmers higher and higher just to keep them there."

Also in 1971, a Caledonia farmer: "The most frightening thing about regional government, as a farmer, are the taxes."

Again in 1971, a Cayuga resident stated, "The bigger the organization, the more feather-bedding, the more people can be hired and no one knows what they're doing." Today in our region, after Stelco, regional government has become the area's biggest employer.

This past fall, a fellow from Oneida speaking to council on the elimination of regional government stated: "Because you are in a crisis you have an opportunity to do something really big, really good - you have an opportunity to go down in history. Please don't miss it."

Back in 1971, an Oneida resident told the Earl Berger study, "When the government gets further away, administration gets hog-wild."

Attitudes have not changed over the years. Recently, a Caledonia citizen told council, "The biggest savings that I can suggest is to get rid of regional government."

A Woodhouse township woman agreed. She told council: "The problem here is that we are overgoverned. We have too much government - it was pointed out that we have a government for half a million people. We've got to do something about the size of our government."

I also want to tell you a bit about some of the findings of the Berger study of 27 years ago, and I quote some of their conclusions:

"There is strong opposition to regional government in all groups sampled both in Haldimand and Norfolk, and in the areas adjacent to the two counties, including Wainfleet township in the Niagara region. There is strong support for increasing the powers of local government."

Compare this to what we hear today. In a recent Angus Reid poll commissioned by our local Simcoe Reformer and Annex publishing, the number one concern for people in my area is property taxes; not health, not education, not jobs and the economy. Some 49% of the people in this poll named property taxes as their number one concern. With the highest property tax increase in the province, at 17.9%, this does not come as a surprise.

The Angus Reid survey, and this was just completed November 3, 4 and 5, as I recall, reported that 85% of Haldimand-Norfolk residents feel there are too many politicians; 71% feel regional government doesn't communicate; 64% don't believe that government is "fine and should be left alone," as was asked in the poll, and 60% support action now; 60% don't feel that regional government spends money wisely. According to Angus Reid, only 20% of people are attached to the region.

Some 74% are attached to local government; 66% oppose losing their local level of government; 72% feel there are too many levels of government; and 39% of people favour one tier. Only 8% of residents want a mega-region. We can learn from the Simcoe Reformer survey. People in Haldimand-Norfolk have been polled, and they believe that change is needed.

Potential drawbacks to regional government mentioned in the Berger study of 1971 were higher taxes, rising costs, loss of community autonomy, a diminishing role for local government, remoteness from citizens, bureaucracy and red tape. From what I see, little has changed in the ensuing 27 years.

I feel that municipal restructuring is needed in Haldimand-Norfolk. Local people elected me to help fix government. As the former Ontario Department of Municipal Affairs said back in 1971 when justifying change: "No system of government is a sacred cow. It is only a device for helping people to live and work together safely, effectively, and harmoniously."

The restructuring powers contained in Bill 26, as members know, do not give regional municipalities the power to restructure. This is why I have brought forward this bill: to give citizens of my constituency the ability to design and institute a form of local government that they both favour and can afford.

The bill does several things. First and foremost, it gives municipalities in Norfolk and Haldimand the ability to come up with a restructuring proposal that eliminates the regional level and restructures the lower tier. Any successful proposal must be fully costed out, it must be subject to public consultation, it must limit restructuring to the current boundaries of the region, and it must be approved by a majority of local councils and by regional councillors.

I feel the strength of this bill is its public consultation process. Any municipality making a proposal must hold a public meeting in each of the other six current municipalities. All citizen input must be recorded. The meetings must be well advertised, and anyone wishing to speak will be allowed to do so.

If no proposal is forthcoming, the minister shall appoint a commission. A commission plan is bound by the same rules as any municipality submitting a proposal; public meetings must be held. A commission report will be implemented on or before January 1, 2001.

Previous governments have studied Haldimand-Norfolk. We certainly have enough studies and enough experience now with regional government to know that it is not working. Our large agricultural area cannot support the current system. It was built on the assumption that 320,000 people would live in Haldimand-Norfolk by the end of the century. The population is still under 100,000, and the end of the century is only 13 months away.

In 1989 and 1994 studies were done, the Pennell report and the Barnes report respectively. The Barnes report of 1994, under the NDP, concluded that a reduction in councillors at both levels of government was needed. It reported that the regional system was too large, that it was "impractical and unresponsive to residents' needs." Regional council rejected the report's recommendations. The 1989 Pennell report conducted by the Liberals also provides insight. This report told us the regional structure came, but not the envisioned development and population growth.

Regional chairs also published a report in 1995 to reduce the number of elected officials and to eliminate levels of government, and people seem to be agreeing with those recommendations as well.

What this bill does is give local people an opportunity to have their say with respect to local government. They also want to fix government. Both opposition parties have sponsored reviews, and I look forward to hearing their position on restructuring today.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that I wonder where the member was when we talked about setting up the new city of Toronto. Some of the quotes that he used certainly could have been used on that occasion. When he says that the bigger the organization, the more the feather-bedding, and when you look at what's happened here in Toronto with the megacity, where was he? I didn't hear him saying those kinds of things at that time. He also said that when government gets further away, the system goes hog-wild. Those were exactly some of the comments people were making at the time, so where were you at that time?

I guess the biggest difficulty I have with this proposal is that it doesn't set out all the possible options. It doesn't set out, for example, a one-tier, one-municipality option for Haldimand-Norfolk. It totally eliminates the possibility of the status quo, that maybe regional government the way it is currently structured is in the long run the desirable way to go. It makes a number of assumptions that those two options shouldn't even be considered at all.

Now, let's take a look as to why the taxpayers of Haldimand-Norfolk are upset about their tax increases. I got some information that clearly indicates - and this is from their treasurer and commissioner of finance. Let me just read to you what he says in his letter. He says that provincial estimates show that the program was to be revenue-neutral, the downloading. "The calculation made by our staff for the budget shows a tax impact of $5.8 million. This has occurred because the revenue-neutral guarantee did not include the cost of policing services and transferred roadways."

They've given me a

summary page of their budget which clearly indicates that in police services alone there was an extra $1.5-billion increase in services and another $5.5 million - did I say "billion"? I meant "million" - for police services, and in the area of roadways and the transferred highways of $330,000. When you add it all together, they have clearly indicated that the tax impact as a result of the downloading was $5.8 million.

No wonder the people of Haldimand-Norfolk are extremely upset over what has happened there. They don't know who to blame. This has been the whole theory of this government, that we throw this all up in the air, we do a whole bunch of restructurings, we do some downloading, we bring in a system we call current value assessment and then we don't implement it because we make changes to it in seven successive bills, totally confusing the general taxpayers out there. They don't know who to blame, and the government is succeeding in some respect in shifting the blame to the municipalities, because people really don't know what to do any more.

I totally agree with them that there has always been a feeling in certain parts of regional municipalities, and I used to hear it when I was at municipal council, that regional municipalities aren't going to work and don't work. I heard it way back into the 1970s. But the one option that may be a very viable option in this case is rejected by them totally out of hand. That is just to have a one-tier municipality in exactly the same way that we've got a one-tier municipality here in the megacity. I don't know why he excluded that. Why would he exclude that as a possible option that they should look at over the next year or so?

I'm not going to get personal with the member because I respect the member, but I've been reading some of the editorials in his area, and just about every newspaper there seems to come up with exactly the same scenario. They all seem to say something like, and I'm just quoting from one of them, "The proposed legislation is nothing less than an attempt to divert attention and shift the blame for provincial government policies which are crushing the very foundation of Ontario, its property taxpayers." That repeats itself over and over.

Another one, a more positive one in the Simcoe Reformer, states: "Mr Barrett may have started the ball rolling, but where he fails is in providing details. In essence, Mr Barrett may have put the cart before the horse by calling for the abolition of regional government before studying all the options to replace it."

That is the real issue here. Yes, the people are upset, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his petition at all and how frustrated the taxpayers feel out there, but I think it simply isn't appropriate for a government studying something to in effect already exclude one or two of the viable options that may be out there. It's for that reason that we will not be supporting this bill.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to Bill 80 and would begin by saying that in the Tillsonburg News on October 28, Mr Barrett was quoted as saying he would table legislation in the spring if local ratepayers desired change. Instead of waiting, he has pushed ahead without, in my view, adequate consultation. That's one serious problem.

The other problem is that there was a meeting on October 27 at the Simcoe Legion on the issue of restructuring, and at the meeting my good friend from Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, assured local ratepayers that the ministry is looking for a local solution, not one designed by Queen's Park. It is somewhat inconsistent with what the member is introducing today. It is also inconsistent with what he said on October 28 with respect to introducing something in the spring should people desire something.

There's something afoot. I dare say it's political, obviously. We know from what the member said that people have been against regional government for a long time. Ever since they created a regional government in 1974, the good folks from that area were not happy. We understand that. They still seem to be unhappy, and he makes that point. But how do we deal with this unhappiness?

Well, he says, there have been tremendous tax increases over the last little while, leading me to believe, and the audience that's watching today, that these tax increases - they've gone up 17% - are due to the regional government, and for that we must teach them a lesson and presumably abolish the regional government.

What he fails to mention is that these tax increases have nothing to do with the regional government as much as they have to do with the downloading of a whole lot of other responsibilities to the municipal government. But he conveniently blames the regional government for these tax increases and capitalizes on people's anger over these tax increases by making that leap and having people understand or make the assumption that the tax increases are due to the regional government. It's due to these guys here downloading everything to the municipalities.

It isn't just me saying it. It makes it appear that if a New Democrat says this, then it must be wrong because they're in opposition and they're against it. It's your own editorial in that community speaking about this and they say:

"The region has been bombed with new expenses for highways" - the writer uses the word "bombed"; I would use the word "whacked," but "bombed" is worse - "welfare, police, ambulance service, nursing homes and public housing. At the same time, farmers lost rebates for taxes on agricultural land.

"Barrett steadfastly has refused to recognize this. Instead, he has blamed regional government for adding these costs to property bills."

That's what we're dealing with. So we need to tell the general public who has caused these property tax increases. It is M. Barrett, the member for Norfolk, and his good buddies through the Premier, M. Harris, who have caused this problem, foisted this particular problem on to those communities. That's the first thing.

Second, what the member for Norfolk is proposing here is something that decentralizes, as opposed to centralizes, communities. It's not something I want but it's something the good Tories on the other side want.

You will recall M. Harris and so many others in Metropolitan Toronto arguing that we needed to get rid of all the cities in the Metro area, get rid of the waste, as is indicated by this bill. So the member for Norfolk argues that we need to decentralize to save money. It's ambivalent. To me it's paradoxical, contradictory. It's quite possible that the Tories can live with both, it's quite possible, but I certainly can't.

I know that the good people in Norfolk are dumbfounded and confused about these contradictions. What I'm assuming the member for Norfolk is saying is that he would want to have Haldimand-Norfolk end up with six welfare offices, six planning departments, six water and sewer crews and so on. So much for duplication, to follow the argument of Tories, not necessarily my own.

How do you deal with these inconsistencies and how do you deal with the fact that there are a whole lot of people in that community angered by the bill that the member for Norfolk has presented today? It isn't necessarily me being angry so much as pointing out the contradictions and problems connected with this bill. It is people in those communities who are angry, particularly councillors.

This particular

article was written by Mr Reid. He quotes a Simcoe councillor, Mr Kent, who says the following:

"`The title annoys me. Just the first word makes me furious. I have four questions. Saving from what? Saving for whom? Saving for what? Saving from whom?'"

He continues by saying: "`How can we consider restructuring our corporation when we have all this downloading? It's bunk. All I can see in this is personal vendettas. All the malcontents in this region looking for an opportunity embrace this legislation. I'm furious with the paper I hold in my hand at this time.'

"Delhi Mayor Rover Vermeulen said the bill was just a `re-election' ploy."

Even others who supported this bill have concerns with it.

I read another poll done by Angus Reid which says:

"Respondents have indicated a number of options with near-equal support. A one-tier government garnered the most support with 39%, but 27% prefer a two-county system and 22% are in favour of the status quo."

What that clearly indicates is that there are a lot of different positions. But some of these alternatives that are supported by a high number of respondents are rejected by the bill, as indicated by Mr Robert Johnston. He wrote this letter on his own merits as an individual. He happens to be the treasurer, no doubt, I agree, but he says:

"The bill would limit options available for reorganization, including both the status quo and the one-tier municipalities, covering the entire geographic area of Haldimand-Norfolk."

That's a problem. I'm convinced that some of you good people from those areas would agree that this is a problem. How could you introduce a bill that prescribes certain options and eliminates - discards, literally - other options that are strongly supported by the people of those communities? I'm convinced that if Tories are reasonable, if that can be possible - I'm sure there are some - they would agree that this is a no-go, that this is a no-brainer, as the Speaker of the House used to say from time to time when he was in opposition. I agree with that. I don't mean to cast aspersions on the member at all.

All I'm saying is that he introduces a bill that is resisted logically, reasonably by good-minded people of that community.

What you need to do is permit those communities to come up with their local solutions. That would be the most fair-minded thing to do. You've got to allow a certain level of democracy to exist. If you reject that model, meaning that local communities should come together to come up with their own alternatives of what they can support, you are rejecting a democratic process, which in all reasonable-minded countries is something that would be a problem.

I'm looking forward to hearing some other speakers who are obviously edgy and want to speak to the bill. I'm not sure if M. Klees wants to, I'm looking forward to that, but I've got a few more minutes. I want to hear your response. I want to see how you defend this particular bill. I'm interested. You might want to support a bill that nobody supports, but I'll tell you it's a problem. It is a problem in many different ways.

The provisions proposed in this bill are actually less democratic than Bill 26. Under Bill 26, a commission can only be appointed if 75 residents of a municipality request it. Under M. Barrett's bill, the province must appoint a commission if there is no local solution. No one, including the province, has any choice when you look at

section 19. All proposals, whether municipally generated or imposed by a commissioner, must dissolve the regional council. Here again M. Barrett is prejudging this situation before it unfolds. All proposals must also leave at least two municipalities still standing - again, prescribing what should exist, as opposed to what people think should exist, as opposed to what they believe the appropriate alternatives should be for their communities.

I am worried, first of all, about the inherent contradictions of the position that the member for Norfolk takes, and if his colleagues support this, they too will contradict themselves vis-à-vis their overall agenda to centralize everything as they did here in the city of Toronto, as they did with Bill 160 to centralize education finances in the hands of M. Harris; particularly the Minister of Education but really the Premier. That is the trend of these Tories, contrary to their old Tory position that big was bad.

They still say big is bad and yet the direction has been to make things bigger and bigger, and in my view they contradict themselves. I want to hear their position in this regard because I believe they're making a serious political mistake. I believe the member for Norfolk is making a serious political mistake, while he thinks he is doing good for himself by supporting a whole lot of people disenchanted with the regional government by pretending that he supports their concerns about high property taxes.

Everyone in the community will understand, as they read the newspapers, as I'm sure they do in those local communities, that property tax increases have a lot to do with your download and not with the regional government. So fix that problem, fix the downloading problem before you try to fix anything else, but I urge this member and urge the others present today to consider seriously the wrong direction this is heading in in terms of not permitting local municipalities to come up with their own local solutions for those local problems.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise, and let me first of all correct the record. The member for Fort York referred to "Deli." "Deli" is in northern India. The "Del-hi" that is referred to in the references is actually the home, I believe, of the regional chair, Mr John Harrison, who is with us here today, and we welcome him.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill. I would very much have liked this bill to read in its title "An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in York Region, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money." The objective of this legislation is set out very clearly in its title, and that is to cut duplication and save taxpayers' money. It's not at all surprising that our colleagues in the Liberal Party as well as the NDP would want to put the brakes on something that would reduce the size of government, that they would oppose an initiative on the part of a member of this House to bring some form of rationalization to government.

I'd like to address the issue from perhaps a rather practical purpose. For many years and in my other life I was involved to some degree in the development industry and I can't tell you how many times we questioned those in our industry at the time. Often in discussions with local councillors, when we brought forward proposals of development the frustration that was expressed was that we had to address, first of all, a planning department at the municipal level, and then we had to address a planning department at the regional level.

We had to address an engineering department at the local municipality, and then we had to address issues at the engineering department at the regional level. And it goes on.

The question that was constantly asked, and a very proper one, and I believe this is the question the honourable member is asking through this piece of legislation, is, why is it that we need those additional levels of government and all of the bureaucracy that goes with it? Can we not, together, come up with a system of government that is not duplicating efforts, that strips away that red tape, that makes it much more efficient to make these decisions?

The original objective of regions was in fact not to be a level of government. It was intended to be a coordinating body and, as time would have it, it evolved into this great, lumbering creature that we have now throughout the province, which is doing the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, and that was to bring efficiency to a growing province and to growing populations.

I submit that the objective the member has is that the local municipalities have a say in what the new face of the government for the area would look like. He has made it very clear that the initiative should come from local municipalities, that there is an opportunity for consultation and, based on that process, at the end of the day a much more efficient system of government. What I commend the member for is that he's bringing leadership to this. I believe he's breaking a log-jam that has existed in this discussion, not only in this area but throughout the province.

I'd like to quote from the Delhi paper. It refers to Councillor Mike Columbus, who expressed his sentiments, adding that he'd be surprised if anything ever comes of Barrett's bill: "`We've had four different reports on restructuring that I know of,' Columbus said, `but when it comes to change, nothing has happened.'"

I believe that's the very reason the member is bringing this legislation forward, because on the one hand he recognizes that something needs to be done to change this constant duplication, this inefficient way of doing business at this level of government. What he is saying is that through this piece of legislation he's prepared to break that log-jam, he's prepared to break that inertia, and give leadership to the people in this area, give them an opportunity to have their say and bring responsible government, a government that reduces duplication and that will at the end of the day save taxpayers' money.

I commend him for his initiative and I believe this will be a model for other areas in the province.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate today on the resolution of my colleague from Norfolk. As other members, my colleagues on this side of the House, have expressed clearly, I think this bill is much more of an attempt to duck responsibility for a government-imposed, government-hammered government-driven solution of downloading and passing responsibilities to local taxpayers.

What I would have liked to have seen and I think what would have been a much more appropriate resolution today that would have fit the needs in that community and right across Ontario is a resolution that would have asked the government to pay back to the municipalities and to the region of Haldimand-Norfolk the money that they owe in downloading. That would have been a step in the right direction. They were short-changed by close to $6 million. That, in my view, would have solved part of the problem.

But I recall when my colleague from Hamilton Centre brought forward a resolution asking the government to basically pay up the $37 million that they owe the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, that they screwed us out of in downloading. Every single member on the government side of the House voted against that resolution. In my view, that would have been the approach.

I find it absolutely bizarre when I look at this and at your past actions, I look at what you've done in Hamilton-Wentworth, I look at what you've done in Toronto - or what you haven't done in Hamilton-Wentworth - and I look at this resolution. These things just seem to be all over the map.

I don't understand how you think you can cut duplication by moving backwards rather than forwards. Every single study across North American has shown, and I challenge you to prove that wrong, that municipalities or regions up to about 500,000 people work much better with a one-tier structure, work much better with a coordinated planning of services, things such as police, health, welfare, planning, tax base. Every single study ever done across North America of every structure of government has shown that.

This smacks of totally the opposite to that. We're going back now to saying each town will have its own planning department, so planning bylaws and zoning bylaws will change every mile. Each town now will have its own engineering department. Each town will now have its own clerks and treasurers. How does that cut duplication? The Tories were the government of less government. You were going to get rid of red tape; you were going to get rid of duplication. Now you have a resolution that says, "Let's go back to the old way, ensuring that we have 200 departments in every town and municipality across this province."

It makes absolutely no sense at all. It will only add cost. It doesn't ease the problem of downloading that you've forced municipalities across this province to deal with. That is a real problem, that you have decided you are going to shift cost to the municipal level to make your books look better. It's that simple.

Look what you did in Metropolitan Toronto. You took a municipality of 2.4 million and you forced amalgamation on that area. There was no consultation, there were no studies - a tremendous public backlash and outcry, and you imposed it. Then I challenge you to look at what you did in my own municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, or what you haven't done. We've had 20 years of studies, reports, consultation, referendums, plebiscites and resolutions. We're not talking about a megacity there.

Think of this: You imposed one tier on this megacity of over two million people, when every study ever done says that doesn't work. Then you had an opportunity to act in a municipality like Hamilton-Wentworth, where there was a deal that had four out of six municipalities on board, where 85% of the public represented by those municipalities was on board, where you had piles of reports and consultant studies saying: "Yes, it's more effective. Yes, you'll save money if you move to a one-tier structure of regional government." Again, we're talking about less than 500,000 people here; we're not talking about 2.4 million or 2.5 million or 2.2 million.

You had those opportunities, and what did your Minister of Municipal Affairs and the cabinet do? They ducked every single time. It caused chaos. It caused a crisis in my region, because they failed to act. They were absolutely gutless in doing the right thing, where you had a consensus, where you had evidence beyond a doubt that showed it would save money and was the right thing to do.

So you ram it down the throats of Metro Toronto, which doesn't want it and you put in a system here that doesn't work. On the other hand, with a municipality that had consensus in four out of six, 85% of the population, you failed to act.

Now we have a resolution that strikes out totally in a third direction. I just don't understand, frankly, where this is coming from. I've had a chance to look at the editorials and I'll be honest with you: I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of that region. I don't live in that region. I don't represent that region. But I've had a chance to look at the editorials and read the letters that have come in. I'm trying to understand where the support or the rationale for this is coming from.

I like to see studies, I like to see evidence that the member can show us where going back to the old system, going back to every little town and empire running their own thing totally, with duplication, is going to save money. I would like to see some evidence of that, because all the information I have in front of me here, all the newspaper articles, letters and editorials that are here clearly do not in any way, shape or form address that or show us. It just shows the opposite.

I would like the member to respond, to tell me how going back to the system of continuing to ensure that we have possibly six police services, six social service departments, six health departments, six planning departments, six treasurers, six clerks, six licence departments, is going to save us money. Because you know what? Each one of those departments has a department head. Each one of those departments needs support staff.

Frankly, when you're dealing with a small area, a small community population-wise - it is not a megacity; it is not representing two million people. It's much smaller and you can do it much more efficiently. If you're going to move in any direction, I would suggest it's the opposite direction, rather than the direction this resolution suggests.

I go back to where we started on this: What is driving this? I can tell you what is driving this. The member, I'm sure, through his office, is getting the same abuse, the same phone calls that most government members are getting in regard to property tax increases. You can hide or you can try, but you have failed. As you failed to pin school closures on school boards, you are failing miserably to pin municipal tax increases on municipal governments.

You're getting the heat, and rightly so, because most municipal governments across this province have done a tremendous job of eliminating duplication, of cutting where necessary, of trying to bring in budgets and taxes that do not negatively impact their taxpayers.

If they were left to their own devices in doing that, most municipalities would have come in at zero, below zero or with a tax decrease. But they couldn't cope with what you dropped on them. They could not cope with the millions of dollars you have shoved down the throats of municipal governments. That is what the problem is, and that is what the solution is trying to address.

I wish the member had taken the other approach. I would have been happy to support a resolution that said, "Let us give the good people you represent the money we owe them, because we shafted them in downloading." I would have been happy, and I would have stood and supported your resolution. But that wasn't the case. That is not what the Premier's office would have wanted you to do, because they're embarrassed, because that would have been an acknowledgement that your downloading exercise was not revenue-neutral. Nobody believes that it is revenue-neutral any more. You've lost that fight; you've lost that argument.

If you're going to help people you represent, I would suggest that you go back to your Minister of Finance, that you go back to the Premier, and say: "We've got a problem. We're facing tax increases of up to 17% because we have downloaded services to the municipal level. Give us the money you owe us." That would be the right thing to do. That would be the just thing to do.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity to participate this morning. I'd like to steal a page from Charles Dickens's book A Tale of Two Cities, and talk about two parts of our province that aren't exactly cities, but for the purposes of this analogy we will refer to them as such. One of those is the area of Haldimand-Norfolk; the other one is my part of the province, which is called Chatham-Kent.

Now, these two parts of our province have some similarities. They both have a population around the 100,000 mark, a little less in Haldimand-Norfolk, a little more in Chatham-Kent, but certainly in that same ballpark. You'd be interested to know that at this current point in time those roughly 100,000 people in Haldimand-Norfolk have something in excess of 60 local politicians. Just by way of comparison, that's more local politicians than the 2.5 million people in the city of Toronto have. But anyway, the people of Haldimand-Norfolk have 60 politicians, somewhere in excess of that.

The people of Chatham-Kent, the same number of people roughly, have 18 local politicians. The people in Haldimand-Norfolk have two tiers of government, a regional chair of government plus some local government. The people in Chatham-Kent made some difficult decisions and ended up with one chair of government. So we have two comparable volumes of people, but in one case almost four times as many local politicians, the area that has two layers of government.

Both of those parts of the province, along with all other parts of our province, were asked to go through a process called the realignment of services, where the province took back control of educational funding, which you and I both know has spiralled totally out of control in our province. The province has taken that back, and in exchange for taking back that responsibility we've asked municipalities to take on some other responsibilities.

We asked Haldimand-Norfolk, with its two levels of government and its 60-plus politicians, to go through the realignment of services; and we asked Chatham-Kent, with its single level of government and its 18 politicians, to also go through the realignment of services. Now we have a situation where it comes to levying taxes for the 1998-99 year and, lo and behold, at this particular point in time the tale of two cities gets very different.

Now we have the region of Haldimand-Norfolk imposing an unbelievable 17.9% tax increase on its citizens, and the people of Chatham-Kent enjoying, due to the hard work of our local politicians - only 18 of them, by the way - no tax increase. As Charles Dickens says in his book, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." It's not that difficult to apply which one of those particular phrases suits the area of Haldimand-Norfolk.

I'm not sure what is the right answer for Haldimand-Norfolk, because I don't live in the area, I'm not part of the area, but I know that in every area of this province, and the absolute proof of the fact of it is Chatham-Kent, we have substantially too much local government. The taxpayers of Ontario can no longer afford and no longer need all that local government.

The member has brought forward a bill that says, "We will eliminate one level of government in Haldimand-Norfolk." He hasn't gone much beyond that. He's allowed much latitude, much opportunity for input from the citizens of his area, but he has said that we have too much government. You don't have to look any further than Chatham-Kent to know the advantages of eliminating a layer of government.

I find it unconscionable that members of this House would continue to support, just because it happens to be the way we've always done it, an incredibly inefficient system of government in Haldimand-Norfolk that this year has resulted in an almost 18% tax increase, when on the other hand we know that a simple single-tier level of government in a likewise community just down the road has benefited from no tax increase.

I'm totally supportive of the initiative put forward by the member for Norfolk. I believe it is the right way to go to eliminate that excess local government in all the areas of our province.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to join the debate and support Mr Barrett's bill today. I also support his bill because it puts forward a restructuring proposal and it gets on with the job of restructuring local government. As the member for Chatham-Kent has just said, we have dramatically too much government at the municipal levels throughout Ontario.

The members opposite have used the term "downloading" several times today and they actually used it incorrectly. Downloading is when one level of government transfers services to another level of government without any revenues attached. In the exercise we've gone through over the past two years, we've transferred services to the municipal level of government with revenue attached, and that revenue has been, as the member for Chatham-Kent just explained, those educational property tax revenues that had been going to education for so many years that now the province is picking up. That's something that needs to be clear.

I always enjoy the speeches of the member for Fort York, but I remember that if he wants an example of directly passing on a cost to taxpayers, he has to look no further than when he was a school board trustee several years ago and he passed on, I believe, an 80% salary increase directly to local taxpayers. That is a prime example of directly passing something on, and that's not the case here.

We must try to explain quite a bit of the very large - the largest, I think, in the province - tax increase passed on by the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. One of the main reasons for that was something that's well known across the province now: a budgeted 237% increase in transfers to regional reserves. That's the biggest chunk. There's also a 15.5% increase in operational expenses. The office of the regional chair allocated itself a 12.5% increase in operational expenses. But that shift to regional reserves was a big reason for property tax increases.

That happened all over the province in the past fiscal year. My own region, Niagara, for instance - right from the regional budget; anyone can look this figure up -received $3 million from the province's special circumstances fund and chose to use only about $850,000 towards lowering a deficit that they might have at the end of the year and put the rest in reserves.

They had social housing costs in their budget estimated at $24.6 million when actual costs, they were told, were probably closer to $22.6 million. But without making that change, they'll have extra money left for reserves.

You can go through and look at some OMERS savings that weren't budgeted. You can look at all the regions around the province that have a declining number of people on social assistance partly paid for by the region. Most of those reductions in costs are not included in budgets.

I wasn't the only one back in my region when we talked about the budget debate about padding reserves. Thorold Mayor Tim Kenny tried unsuccessfully during their budget debate to move money proposed for reserves towards the tax levy. Kenny just couldn't buy setting aside money in reserves when taxes are going up 13%. "I call that padding the budget," said Kenny.

Subsequent to that, we learned a little bit more from regional councillors. The Welland mayor and a regional councillor in my area in October this year talked about the region's so-called pay-as-you-go policy for sewer and water treatment. He blasted it as being misleading and bordering on being fraudulent. He pointed out that, while the region tells everyone in our region that water and sewers are pay-as-you-go, last year they collected $37 million in water revenues, yet the cost to the region of treating the water and sewer was only $15 million, another area where they're padding reserves and at the same time increasing taxes. This happens everywhere.

Recently, my mayor in Niagara Falls has become fed up and has said in our paper, "Let's go it alone." He wants some restructuring down in my area, where we have 400,000 people and 13 levels of government. We need some change. Mr Barrett's bill proposes change. Ten thousand people in his constituency have asked for change, so I'm going to support their desire and Mr Barrett's desire for change in his municipality.

Mr Barrett: I would like to thank the members for participating in the debate on my bill. I appreciate the support and I wish to ask that this legislation move to the committee stage. After a vote at 12 I'll be asking for referral to the general government committee in order to deal with some of these concerns and to allow members of the opposition to have some further input.

I would like to wrap up the debate by restating some facts for the record. In contrast to what the member for Kingston and The Islands and the member for Fort York say, this legislation is unique in that it guarantees citizen participation. To the member for Fort York: You propose a Toronto solution, and I reject that.

With respect to citizen involvement, the ability of interested citizens to reorganize municipal government is a strong reason for them to make their views known and not to rely on just my option or my solution as an MPP.

Citizens of Norfolk and Haldimand will have the opportunity to take

part in shaping their future environment. Local people wish to seize that opportunity and, as my colleague from York-Mackenzie confirmed, this bill guarantees citizen involvement.

No decisions on restructuring will be made without opportunities for every citizen to make his or her views known at public meetings and in writing. Not only individuals but municipalities, other public agencies and private groups and businesses will be invited to take advantage of these opportunities.

With respect to taxes, as the MPP for the area I don't like to see my constituents suffer under the unfair tax hike that has been imposed on them this year, a tax hike of 17.9% which will kill jobs, kill growth and kill communities in my area. Help me change that situation.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): We will now deal with ballot item number 33 standing in the name of Mr Patten.

Mr Patten has moved second reading of Bill 78.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Mr Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 80. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until your name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Duncan, Dwight

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Churley, Marilyn

Elliott, Brenda

Hastings, John

Jordan, W. Leo

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Newman, Dan

Saunderson, William

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 11.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is ordered to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I request that it be moved to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? Carried.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): All those in favour please rise and remain standing until your name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Elliott, Brenda

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

McLean, Allan K.

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Duncan, Dwight

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 11.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is ordered to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I request that the bill be sent to the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1211 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm addressing my comments today directly to the Premier, concerning the continuous lament with respect to business taxes. This time the complainant is a small business operator from the city of Stratford, Ontario. This is not a big business; this is one of those businesses that on a daily basis a husband and wife or mother and father or a single person conducts on behalf of the people in Ontario.

This is what they had to say. It is addressed directly to the Premier. "I wish to bring to your attention that our city of Stratford has raised our municipal taxes excessively and is blaming that increase on your government." This is a small operator, a bed-and-breakfast operator, and their business taxes went up by a stunning 340%. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, a small business operator, 340%. On this particular business, the tax went up from $9,000 to $38,000.

They are not alone. There are small business operators in Ontario such as this one by the thousands. They are calling on the government; they are calling on the Premier; they are calling on the minister who is here in the House today to do something about it. On behalf of all the businesses in Ontario, I'm calling on the minister and on the Premier to do something about it.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On November 24, the Harris government finally released the details of how funds targeted for nurse practitioners would be spent. The ministry press release specifically states, "This funding support enables a number of agencies to hire over 120 nurse practitioners." This statement is completely incorrect. In actual fact, only 22.5 new positions for NPs will be added to our system of community health centres; only three new NPs will be hired at nursing stations in northern Ontario.

The bulk of the remaining money will be used to increase the salaries of nurse practitioners already working in agencies to recognize their skills. Take the Centre de santé communautaire in Sudbury as an example. It will receive money to upgrade the salaries of the two nurse practitioners already employed. It will not receive money it asked for to hire two new NPs to provide more health care to residents in Sudbury, Rayside-Balfour and Valley East.

Across northern Ontario, a maximum of six new NPs may be hired: three in northern nursing stations and one in each of the community health centres in New Liskeard, Ignace and Longlac. New Democrats have urged the ministry to establish a special fund to allow nurse practitioners to work with family doctors in underserviced areas. The ministry did not listen. As a result, some 26 northern communities, five in the Sudbury region alone, which are all declared underserviced for health care, will not benefit by having a nurse practitioner come to provide health care.

We need to get more nurse practitioners working in Ontario. It's a shame the government rhetoric on jobs falls so short of the reality.

HURRICANE RELIEF

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Across my riding communities are coming together to provide relief to the victims of Hurricane Mitch which devastated parts of Central America about one month ago.

One effort based out of Lake of Bays township in Muskoka will see eight local individuals, seven of whom are members of the township's volunteer fire department, leave for Honduras to personally contribute to the relief effort. The eight individuals who will leave next Thursday are Lake of Bays fire chief Kelly Serson, Frank Van Gelder, Jason Provencher, Steve Wolman, Peter Wrattan, Charlie Cunnington, Heinz Hubbert and Tom Brown.

In a week's time, these men will pack all the supplies that weight restrictions will permit and get on a plane destined for the Honduran capital. Many of the supplies, which include blankets and medicine, have been donated by the community. From the capital, they will travel for four hours to the community of Choletca.

The area around Choletca was hard hit by Hurricane Mitch with 7,000 confirmed deaths and 11,000 people still reported missing. In Choletca itself, the main medical centre for the area was completely destroyed by the hurricane. With medical teams from around the world working to help the victims of this tragedy, rebuilding the local medical centre is a priority.

These eight volunteers from Muskoka will be providing low-key medical support and delivering supplies. Perhaps most importantly, their main effort will be to reconstruct this medical facility as quickly as possible. The volunteers are planning to be in Honduras for 11 days.

On behalf of my constituents and the Legislature, I want to wish these local citizens good luck and recognize them for their selfless efforts.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Over the last few weeks I've visited many people in my riding and held many community meetings. The topic of discussion is always the same: Why is Mike Harris destroying public education in Ontario? Why are the cuts in education continuing? Why does the government keep picking fights with teachers? These are the same questions in every community.

I visited countless numbers of schools: Keelesdale, Weston Memorial, C.R. Marchant, George Harvey Collegiate, George Anderson, Dennis Avenue, Lambton Park. These schools are all threatened with closure.

I've also met with representatives of Pelmo Park, Flemington Public School, Frank Oke, Nelson A. Boylen, Gracefield, Brookhaven, Maple Leaf, Cordella Junior. On behalf of these parents, these students and these communities, I want to deliver a message to the government.

Premier, the people of this province want the cuts in education to stop. They want you to stand up and take responsibility and recognize that your funding formula just doesn't work. These parents are not deceived by the fact that you've rescinded and gone halfway. They know this is just a stay of execution.

Again, it's not about which schools will stay open and which schools will close. Your cuts in education have hurt just about everyone in Toronto. That goes for all the kids and all the communities. They want you to stop with these cuts.

AUGUSTO PINOCHET

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I, along with 200 Chileans, was very happy to celebrate yesterday's decision by the Law Lords which ruled that former dictator Pinochet cannot claim immunity for crimes that he committed.

His son, Augusto Pinochet Jr, said of this decision that it was "a political and Fascistic judgment." How sheltered this Augusto Pinochet Jr must have been all these years not to have noticed that this so-called frail old man led one of the most Fascistic regimes that tortured and killed thousands of innocent Chileans.

This ruling which was given yesterday by the Law Lords is a very important victory in the fight for accountability of perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

I hope the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, will do the right thing and decide to permit the extradition proceedings to go forward so that justice can finally come about and the final stages of healing will happen for the many Chileans who have been tortured over these years and the crimes this man has committed against them.

FRED WEST

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to honour a very special constituent. Mr Fred West, a veteran of the First World War, recently received the government of France's highest award for his military service and dedication. The Legion of Honour was presented to Mr West by France's Consul General at a special ceremony in Bowmanville on Remembrance Day.

This 99-year-old veteran is truly a remarkable person who at the age of 16 was helping to defend the Western Front as a machine gunner. Mr West has received many honours but the greatest was the recognition of the Legion of Honour from the government of France. The Legion of Honour is equivalent to the Order of Canada.

It has been 80 years since the end of the First World War, and I believe it is important now more than ever before that all veterans be thanked for their dedication to our province and indeed our country.

It is my privilege to congratulate Mr West for receiving the Legion of Honour from France. It's an honour to recognize him and all veterans for their service to country. The freedom we all enjoy is thanks to the many veterans, including Mr Fred West.

On a more personal note, it was a wonderful celebration. The community joined in: the mayor; John Greenfield, past president of the Bowmanville Legion; Lyne Pudister, who is now the legion's president; Doreen Park, who saw service in the First World War; Jim Connell, who is the new zone commander for area 10; and Neale and Shirley McLean, who bring respite service and quality of life to Mr West.

I'd like all members to thank Mr West for his service.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As I picked up my National Post this morning and read the

article "Master of US Attack Ads Works on Tory Campaign," I couldn't help but think of that old adage about my enemies' friend, in this case my enemies' friend Mike Murphy. According to Paul Rhodes, one of the whiz kids, he says, "He knows all kinds of advertising - negative, positive, what works and what doesn't." I bet he does, because you know what campaigns he has worked on? Senator Jesse Helms. Remember Senator Jesse Helms? And that great American patriot, Oliver North.

We've seen already for the last two weeks what this government is all about. It's about attack ads. Let me tell you, my enemies' friends are Oliver North and Jesse Helms. That's what this government's about. That's what they're going to do.

We're looking forward. We hope you will keep up the advertisements you've been running.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Brampton North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Brampton North, come to order, please. I called your name three times.

Mr Duncan: I would say to the people of Ontario, in my defence, that the same guy who did all of Oliver North's and Jesse Helms's promotions has been spending 48 million taxpayer dollars for your phony right-wing propaganda.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We are facing a challenge of mammoth and potentially devastating proportions in our country right now. It is the very destructive and unprecedented dumping of steel by offshore companies. This activity affects Ontario in a major way, particularly the communities of Hamilton and Sault Ste Marie.

I'm calling today on the federal government, specifically the Department of National Revenue, to move quickly on the anti-dumping trade action brought forward by the steel industry. The ministry has now deemed that the case is fully documented. They now have to decide to accept the action and bring it forward to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

All of us here and anybody out there concerned about the future of the steel industry in Ontario, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie, need to be writing or calling the federal Department of National Revenue and Minister Dhaliwal to move quickly. I am calling on the Ontario government, on behalf of the steel industry and the communities they support, primarily Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton, and the jobs these industries represent, to intercede with the federal government to act now before any more damage is done.

The US government, as we speak, is moving to protect their interests. This could put us in double jeopardy if we are not acting together. If the US deems itself to be injured by this dumping, steel heading for the US will now be coming to Canada, and that will hit us -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

HAMILTON SEEKERS VOLLEYBALL CLUB

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last night the Wall of Fame at Copps Coliseum saw the addition of some new inductees to its already distinguished list of sports celebrities.

I'm speaking today of the 12 girls, coach and coaching staff of the Hamilton Seekers Volleyball Club. This group of hard-working, dedicated girls has been described by their coach as terrific, happy kids who like to work hard, and indeed they have worked exceptionally hard.

Since 1978 this team has represented consistently and proudly the city of Hamilton at city, provincial, national and international levels. The Seekers Volleyball Club and their coach, Frank Lilliman, have brought home to Hamilton a great distinction in Canadian champions.

The Hamilton Seekers attended the Canadian Open Midget Championships in Calgary earlier this year and went undefeated in 11 games in a tournament that saw 115 teams compete. Their final game saw them come from behind to defeat the US champions, eventually winning the game 2 to 1 and giving them the title as Canadian Open Midget Champions.

I congratulate all the girls, their coach and their coaching staff for a job well done and a distinction well deserved.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I beg leave to present a report on Bill 55 from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 55,

An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 55, Loi révisant la

Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier, the title of which is amended to read "An Act respecting apprenticeship and certification / Loi concernant l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the report from the standing committee on general government on Bill 55, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, David

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Villeneuve, Noble

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

North, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 14, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill: