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

November 17, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L107 - Thu 17 Nov 1988 / Jeu 17 nov 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMISSIONS COMMUNAUTAIRES DE RESSOURCES / COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCE AUTHORITIES

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCE AUTHORITIES

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

EXPO 2000

PRAYERS IN LEGISLATURE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

YOUNG OFFENDER

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPUTERS-IN-EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAM

COURTHOUSE SECURITY

RESPONSES

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HEALTH SERVICES

COMPUTERS-IN-EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PAY EQUITY IN HOSPITALS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

EXTENDED CARE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

PLASTIC PACKAGING

WATER QUALITY

REPORT OF LEGIONNAIRE’S DISEASE

LANGUAGE TRAINING

PETITIONS

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POLICE AND SHERIFFS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AND HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONTINUED)

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMISSIONS COMMUNAUTAIRES DE RESSOURCES / COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCE AUTHORITIES

M. Pouliot: Je vous souhaite le bonjour, Monsieur le Président, en ce jour historique qui marque, je crois, le deuxième anniversaire de la Loi 8. On aura l’occasion, certainement, d’en parler plus longuement au cours de l’après-midi.

Mr. Pouliot moved resolution 50:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Natural Resources, with the support and expertise of the Ministry of Northern Development, the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology should enter into agreements with municipalities for the purpose of setting up community-based resource authorities which would be given the right and responsibility of planning and managing these resources for the benefit of the resource itself as well as the benefit of local economies, and that the government of Ontario, with federal assistance, should make available, to communities interested and wishing to set up such an authority, sufficient funding to enable them to enhance the value and maintain the viability of the growing forest by those who have a greater stake in its future than those who make the decisions in distant boardrooms.

Le Vice-Président: M. Pouliot propose cette résolution en son nom. L’honorable député a jusqu’à 20 minutes pour faire sa présentation. Il peut en réserver quelque portion que ce soit pour conclure.

M. Pouliot: À ce titre, respectant l’option, je crois que je prendrai cinq, six ou sept minutes qui me seront disponibles à la fin.

There is a real and very justifiable anxiety that prevails in northern Ontario today. People are concerned throughout the north about our forest resource. Historically, the north has been dependent on its resources. We depend on mining and we depend on forestry, and we produce across Ontario some $12 billion of wealth annually; yet more and more anxiety is the order of the day in our special part of Ontario. The reason is very simple. For decades now we have experienced a cut-and-run approach to our important resource. We have not farmed our forestry.

I have some pictures with me that show some of the devastation. I should have had them enlarged, but I did not wish to embarrass the government. People who live in and represent northern Ontario have a sense of vision when it comes to natural resources. They plan. If you opt for decentralization -- and this bill proposes to do that -- the promotion of the north will happen automatically.

What we have here is called silvicultural slum --neglect, systematic, deliberate -- and that has been allowed to happen. Consequently, there is an increasing body of evidence that tells us in definite terms that unless we choose to act promptly and decentralize the authority to manage our forestry, we will not be able to look to the future with any confidence.

We have some 60 communities with a population of 2,500 people or fewer that are solely dependent on the forest industry. It is the only game in town, the only employer, and yet in those communities, because we are talking here in terms of cyclical business, the rate of unemployment in some of those communities reaches between 30 per cent and 35 per cent. Those statistics are nothing short of horrifying.

Members will be most aware of the report that was tabled in May 1986, the report of the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario. This is what the report says: It tells this government that the outlook for the north is not encouraging. It mentions to the government that our population is decreasing, and yet we still produce $12 billion of wealth and it is going to senior forms of government, going into the pockets of shareholders. We want to wish them well; there is nothing wrong with getting a fair return on investment. Our party has always advocated the spirit of free enterprise.

We make no apologies for that, but what is happening here is that we have a one-way street. There is less and less money coming back to the north. More and more money is going to the senior body of government and less money to access roads, less money to reforestation. We do not plant enough trees. We cut some six million or seven million cords a year in northern Ontario. It takes 60 or 70 years to grow a tree, depending on the species. It costs more and more to harvest what should be a renewable resource, but we do not do that.

We do not put enough money back into the system to give us the viability that we should, indeed, be taking for granted.

What the committee says is that its opinion is that we need a major political and public commitment by the people of Ontario to give us a chance to encourage l’industrie forestière.

Vous me permettrez, bien sûr, Monsieur le Président, de déclarer avec toute la sincérité que je peux commander -- et je ne parle pas en ultimatums; je parle sans menace -- vous me permettrez d’essayer d’expliquer candidement au gouvernement que nous avons besoin de planification.

On a toujours tenu pour acquis que le Nord était éternel à cause de ses richesses naturelles. D’accord, en ce qui concerne l’industrie minière, ça ne peut pas être éternel; tout le monde comprend ça. Mais quand on parle de l’industrie forestière et qu’on constate quotidiennement la négligence systématique et délibérée que nous avons permise dans le Nord de l’Ontario, on ne peut pas envisager l’avenir avec confiance, loin de là.

Je sais fort bien, en vertu de la place que j’occupe dans le Nouveau Parti démocratique, que la chance de voir adopter ici une résolution qui est raisonnable est minime. Cela, je le sais, mais ça, c’est dommage aussi. C’est dommage parce qu’on nous offre aujourd’hui, en ce qui concerne l’industrie forestière, deux choses.

On établit, sans l’ombre d’un doute, que nous sommes dans un sérieux pétrin; que notre population du Nord, à cause de la technologie qui, souvent, est associée à des pertes d’emplois, avec l’influence du Sud de l’Ontario, avec one industrie soi-disant cyclique; que ces facteurs individuels, ces facteurs collectifs contribuent à one performance économique qui ne vient absolument pas près de remplir son potentiel.

Ce qu’on propose, c’est une autorité à l’échelle municipale, une autorité à l’échelle provinciale, une autorité à l’échelle fédérale. En somme, il s’agit ici de décentraliser l’autorité gouvernementale pour assurer un avenir prometteur. Le gouvernement l’a fait à Geraldton mais, bien sûr, en temps de crise. Tout récemment il l’a fait à Armstrong, où il a créé, à cause de l’autorité municipale, quelque 35 emplois. Bien sûr, vous me direz, Monsieur le Président, que 35 emplois, eh bien, ce n’est pas beaucoup.

Mais quand on regarde les 35 emplois situés dans la petite municipalité d’Armstrong, on s’aperçoit évidemment que 35 emplois, c’est quand même beaucoup; ce sont 35 emplois qu’on n’avait pas hier. On a quoi? une population de 200 personnes, 300 personnes à Armstrong? Si on a 35 emplois bien rémunérés qui n’existaient pas hier, eh bien, c’est quand même beaucoup.

Mes collègues se permettront aussi, avec moi, de faire état, ligne par ligne, de ce que j’ai voulu soumettre à la Chambre. Il est bien dommage que, à cause de la partisanerie politique -- c’est le parti que vous représentez, votre parti, Monsieur le Président -- cette résolution, qui est à la base de l’économie du Nord de l’Ontario, n’a aucune chance d’être adoptée. Donc, je vais prendre l’option qui m’a été offerte et garder quelques minutes pour conclure.

Le Vice-Président: Merci. Vous avez dix minutes.

M. Pouliot: Oui, merci.

Le Vice-Président: En passant, si je peux me le permettre, par respect pour la présidence, on ne devrait pas faire référence... Je suis dans le fauteuil d’une façon non partisane. Je voudrais vous rappeler ça, Monsieur le Député.

Le député de Nipissing.

M. Harris: Je comprends la frustration du député de Lac Nipigon, mais si le ministre des Richesses naturelles (M. Kerrio) faisait son travail comme il se doit, cette résolution ne serait pas nécessaire.

I really regret that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has felt compelled to bring this resolution forward. I understand his frustration. I understand why this resolution is before the floor, because the Ministry of Natural Resources has completely and totally abandoned its authority, its job of managing our resources in Ontario. I do not believe they have done it voluntarily, and that gets to the heart of why this resolution is necessary.

What has happened over the past two or three years is that resource decisions are now being made by Shelley Peterson, by Margaret Atwood and by the Toronto Star. I want to say to members that this is wrong. The Ministry of Natural Resources had a proud tradition of balancing the various interests .

The member refers to decisions being made in distant boardrooms. I do not think decisions should be made in distant boardrooms. I think the boardrooms of New York will have their viewpoint on their international companies, of how they would like to proceed, whether it is mining, forestry or other resources, and they will have valid opinions, which should be taken into consideration. The Shelley Petersons and the Margaret Atwoods and the Ministry of the Environment will have their concerns, but there should be an arbitrator of those opinions. When one becomes so strong that it is the decision, then the system is out of balance and it is out of whack.

Some may argue that at some point in our history those decisions were being made in the boardrooms and it was necessary for others more concerned about the environment, more concerned about the long-term sustained yield, particularly of our forest industry, that those views were not balancing. I agree; there was a time in history when that was the case.

But that time in history is not now. Everyone is concerned with the environment, none more so than those people who live in northern Ontario, where the resources are. We all recognize, particularly in the forest industry, that it is not an infinite resource; that it is a finite resource which must be managed on a sustained-yield basis and the land use planning guidelines which were brought in in the late 1970s and the early 1980s by my colleague the former minister, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope); that you must balance the other interests in forestry practice and in land use planning, the tourism interest, the recreational interest, the wilderness interest. There must be a balance.

The Ministry of Natural Resources, as the steward of the land and as the steward of the resources, ought to be given the authority to balance all the various interests and to make those decisions, and it must be held accountable. When they make mistakes, they must be held accountable. But I will say today that nobody can blame the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) or the Ministry of Natural Resources, because the decision-making process has been snatched out of that ministry and it is being put into the hands of the Toronto Star and the Shelley Petersons and the Margaret Atwoods, and that is a crime.

We have seen decisions taking place in the Temagami area based on that. We have seen 150 jobs in Temagami, and they have said, “Hey, not many votes there for us.” But if the Toronto Star reports that cutting a tree is bad and we authorize the cutting of a single tree, we will not do it. Then it multiplies and it affects my riding. It affects many of the lumber operations in my riding. It affects MacMillan Bloedel in Sturgeon Falls.

It really comes down to a total abandoning of the government’s responsibility to be the final arbitrator through the Ministry of Natural Resources. I guess it fits in with what we have seen with this government in so many areas. There are difficult decisions to be made. In the forest industry a difficult decision has to be made virtually every day, balancing all the interests and then coming out and making a decision.

Since this government lost the decisiveness of my colleagues to the right, the New Democratic Party, who forced it to make decisions in the two-year period it ran things -- I did not agree with them all, but at least they forced it to make decisions -- since 1987, when it was on its own, this government will not make a decision. It appears unable to make a decision.

I am not particularly happy with this resolution. I have to tell members I do not think communities should be making these decisions. I would support the setting up of a community-based board to have input to the Ministry of Natural Resources if the Ministry of Natural Resources in fact were making the decision as it should.

I understand the frustration of the member, and I am going to support this resolution. I am going to support it because nobody is doing it right now. I do not think a municipal board is the right way. I see many problems with that. I see many local municipal interests taking the place of overall interests. Quite frankly, I would be concerned from the environmental point of view, the forestry practice point of view, the mining point of view, the aggregate point of view, about the decision being made by a community-based group which can see the immediate impact of jobs and dollars. I think there needs to be a more provincial authority looking at the long term in these decisions.

Why am I supporting the resolution? It is because nobody is doing it right now and I think it would be better than what is happening in the way this government is operating. I think it would be better than that.

I would assume the government probably will be opposed to this. In its opposition to it, I hope it recognizes why this resolution came forward, why the member for Lake Nipigon felt compelled to put something into the vacuum which exists there right now, and really looks inward at what is happening in the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Those members who live in ridings in northern Ontario, outside of Toronto, who deal with the ministry, and their constituents deal with it on a fairly regular basis, know that those staff people are completely demoralized. Professional foresters with 20, 30 and 40 years of experience are no longer making decisions they should be making and they are demoralized. Whatever recommendations they make, they know are not being considered.

I ask members, if they oppose this, as government members probably will, to at least recognize why the member for Lake Nipigon felt this resolution was necessary and to look at what has been happening in the resource decision-making of their government. I know they will not do it publicly -- I understand that -- but privately, they had better start asking questions. This is private members’ hour. This is a private member’s resolution, and I really do urge those private members of the government benches to raise this issue in caucus, to raise this issue with the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

There is no point raising it with the Minister of Natural Resources because he has been whipped. He has been taken to his feet and he has got whop, whop, whop, and he is down and out.

If members do not support the member and do not support the ministry, they are making a bad, bad mistake.

Mr. Brown: I am delighted to be able to stand and respond to the resolution put forward by my friend the member for Lake Nipigon. As members will recall, the resolution suggested that agreements be made between Ontario municipalities and the provincial government to set up community-based resource authorities.

We fully support the concept of co-operative resource management with local communities, interest groups and individuals. The government of Ontario has demonstrated that support time and time again in many of its programs and initiatives.

As a matter of fact, in response to proposals by several northern communities to establish community-based forests, the Ministry of Natural Resources is already actively investigating mechanisms that would involve communities even more closely in the planning and management of local resources. Also, several southern Ontario communities have expressed an interest in increasing their involvement in the existing agreement forest program in which MNR currently assumes management responsibilities for municipally owned forests.

In addition, the ministry is aware that many groups and individuals in unorganized areas would like to become actively involved in resource management decision-making. Our government, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, is continually exploring opportunities for co-operative resource management with local communities and groups to ensure the best possible approach. The Ministry of Natural Resources consults with many other ministries, including the ministries of Northern Development, Mines and Industry, Trade and Technology.

I would like to remind members that while the Ministry of Natural Resources is exploring various mechanisms for local involvement in forest resource management, there is already a variety of opportunities for communities and individuals to share in the wise management of all of our natural resources.

The Minister of Natural Resources has appointed a number of active citizens’ advisory councils to provide vital consultation on such issues as the management of our fisheries and our provincial park system. The Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council was appointed last year to advise the minister on fisheries management policy and programs. Dr. E. J. Crossman of the Royal Ontario Museum chairs the council, which represents all types of fishery users from across the province.

The Provincial Parks Council is another citizens’ advisory body that reports to the Minister of Natural Resources. In the summer of 1987, the council conducted a comprehensive survey of park users. Council members visited 54 parks, interviewed more than 650 people and 36 interest groups and analysed more than 1,000 written comments. The results were very encouraging. Ninety-six per cent of those surveyed were satisfied with the quality of their visits. Many of the points raised in the council’s report are being addressed in the ministry’s five-year, multimillion-dollar parks revitalization program.

The Ministry of Natural Resources also receives voluntary support in its provincial parks through co-operating associations. The Friends of Provincial Parks is instrumental in helping to develop and implement interpretative programs in such popular parks as Algonquin, Killarney in my riding, Quetico and Presqu’ile. Of course, the ministry has very successful community wildlife and fisheries involvement programs in which local residents, municipalities, fish and game clubs, cottagers’ associations, naturalist groups and schoolchildren all have a direct hand in improving habitat and restoring natural populations.

The community fisheries involvement program completed its sixth year of operation in 1987 with more than 212 projects involving thousands of volunteers across the province. Clubs, local residents and even schoolchildren are getting actively involved in the rehabilitation of fish spawning areas or helping with restocking programs and much more. The ministry spent more than $500,000 on community fisheries projects in 1987.

The community wildlife involvement program has also been extremely productive. More than 5,000 volunteers have logged 50,000 hours of their time on 172 projects in 1987. This program supports the Ontario lakes loon survey in which loon populations are being monitored by 600 individuals across the province.

In the forest resources area, the majority of the ministry’s forest resource program is built on co-operative commitment among the forest industry, various levels of government, special interest groups and individual land owners.

On crown lands, co-operation between the ministry and the forest industry occurs through forest management agreements. These 20-year agreements commit forest companies to plan and carry out the harvesting, regenerating and tending activities in their licensed forest areas. Reviews of these agreements are conducted every five years to ensure that companies are adhering to the strict ground rules set out by the ministry.

There are now 30 forest management agreements covering a total of 177,821 square kilometres or 69 per cent of all land under timber licence in the province. Forest management agreements are very successful at integrating harvesting and regenerating activities so that the long-term economic security of both the industry and the communities which depend on them is ensured.

On public and private lands, the Ministry of Natural Resources co-operates with local governments through agreement forests. Today, 55 of these agreements, covering more than 110,000 hectares, have been signed with counties, townships, regional municipalities and conservation authorities across southern Ontario. There is also a forestry agreement with one company in eastern Ontario and one with the federal government for the National Capital Commission. Agreement forests are managed by the ministry through the provision of necessary equipment, fences and planting stock.

Finally, individuals who own more than five acres of land and are interested in reforesting and improving their forest areas have the opportunity to become involved in the ministry’s woodland improvement agreement program. Under this program, private owners agree to protect their forest areas for 15 years. This includes buying trees for planting. In return, ministry staff prepare a management plan, estimate the cost of prescribed management practices and either do the work or pay for it. By the end of 1986-87, there were almost 10,000 active woodland improvement agreements covering about 140,000 hectares of forested land.

As members may know, the Ministry of Natural Resources is actively pursuing the continuation of the five-year, $150-million Canada-Ontario forest resource development agreement. This agreement is scheduled to terminate on March 31, 1989. Through co-operative agreements with different levels of government, with special interest groups and with individuals, the Ministry of Natural Resources is continuing to build effective resource management partnerships.

In addition to its highly effective agreement programs, the Ministry of Natural Resources policy on integrated resource management makes public participation an essential part of resource management planning. The ministry regularly asks for public input on how local parks, wildlife, fisheries and forests should be planned and managed through ongoing discussions and through open houses and public meetings held across this province.

As the honourable members can see, the Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to the continued active involvement of the people of Ontario in planning and managing the future of our natural resources. The Minister of Natural Resources agrees wholeheartedly with the cooperative intent of the resolution put before the members today. The ministry is continually evolving programs in all resource management areas that not only embrace this concept but are much broader in scope than the resolution raises today.

Co-operative resource management is an integral part of the direction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and will continue to take place in the future. The people of Ontario have expressed their interest in a multifaceted approach to resource management. Just as our natural resources overlap and affect one another, the ministry’s management initiatives overlap a wide spectrum of both public and resource issues.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up, I am sorry.

Mr. Brown: For these reasons, I cannot support the resolution.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin spends 10 minutes supporting the resolution and then winds up saying he cannot support it. I do not know where he is coming from this morning.

I would like to begin my comments by giving members a couple of quotes. The first one is, “The waste and destruction of our woods has been so universal that I conceive nothing less than a universal plantation of all sorts of trees will relieve the situation.” That was back in 1662. A second quotation: “We are wasting our forests, habitually, wickedly, insanely and at a rate which must soon bankrupt us all. Destroying a forest because we want timber is like smothering a hive of bees because we want honey.” That was from a New Brunswick businessman in 1872.

A third quote, “We continue to live off our forest capital like an exiled Russian princess selling off her jewels one at a time.” That was from a British Columbia politician in 1943. The final quote: “The existence of a perpetually renewing forest is seriously in doubt. Extensive regeneration at vastly increased rates is required.” That was from a royal commission in Ontario in 1985.

For 400 years we have had these kinds of comments being made about the lack of regeneration in our forests. We cannot blame the mismanagement of our forests on the fact that we do not understand the need to regenerate; those quotes going back 400 years are evidence of that. We cannot blame it on the fact that we do not know how to replant our forests; of course we know how. In places in Europe, they have been doing it for centuries.

We had such a luxury of trees here, such a surplus of trees, that we felt we did not have to do it properly. We have allowed forests to be depleted to a point where jobs, indeed whole communities, are being threatened. The answer, in my view, is quite simple. If members would, I hope, listen carefully -- I have listened carefully to what my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon said -- it is to decentralize the management of our forests.

I believe that better forest management will not be achieved as long as our forests are managed by highly centralized multinational corporations under the supervision of highly centralized, highly complacent government bureaucracies. Instead, we need a system of forest management that decentralizes control over the forests and puts this control in the hands of those with the greatest interest in maintaining a healthy forest, the communities that depend on those forests for their very survival. Decentralized, local control combined with strong leadership from provincial governments are the prerequisites of a well-managed, regenerating forest.

Let me elaborate on those points. I believe that for both ecological and economic reasons, we need a decentralized forest management system that is flexible enough to adapt to the needs of a specific forest. One cannot have a conversation about silvicultural practices without reference to the site-specific nature of forestry. Soil type and thickness, topography, slope, drainage patterns, watercourses, the age and mix of the forest and climate will all affect the cutting methods and regeneration techniques needed on a specific site.

Forest fires, disease and insect infestation all make forest management an even more unpredictable task. Proper forest management cannot be practised from an isolated boardroom or a head office. It requires an army of local foresters who have the desire, the knowledge and the time to get to know the specific forests under their care.

Beyond the ecological reasons, there are other factors that make decentralized local control of our forests the most sensible management system. Our forests are more than just fibre to be turned into next year’s profits. Beyond their importance to the national economy, the forests are the life source of dozens of Canadian and Ontario communities. These communities have been built up around the forest industry. Roads and schools have been built and new small businesses established.

The very existence of these towns and cities depends on the surrounding forests being managed on a sustained yield basis. If regeneration programs fail, the survival of those communities is in doubt. Forest communities are also dependent on the environmental and aesthetic values of the woodlands to support the tourist industry, which is often crucial to their economy as well.

Who is more suited to managing the forest than those who have the largest stake in maintaining its long-term health? Decentralized control over the management of our forests makes sense for a number of reasons. First, it allows for the flexibility needed to adapt to the site-specific and ever-changing needs of the forest. Second, it would put the management of our forests into the hands of those who are most dependent on the forest for the values it can provide.

Let’s look at the current system of forest management that we have in Ontario. Here, our forests are managed by large forest companies under forest management agreements. These 20-year agreements are negotiated between the corporate executives and top-level bureaucrats, and each agreement covers areas as large as 16,000 square kilometres. There is little or no input from the communities that depend on a well-managed forest for their survival.

Then the role of forest manager is turned over to the multinational corporations. Harvesting, regeneration and tending all become the responsibility of the corporate executives. One could hardly imagine a group with a more limited interest in the forest and with a more short-term view of its value. By their very nature, the goals of the forest industry conflict with intensive forest management.

The forest industry exists to make a profit, and by forest standards, a short-term profit. A corporation’s main concern is that there be enough growing stock to recover the investment in plant and machinery and to make a profit over a finite period. This profit will be made on the current stand of trees, not on the trees that may or may not be growing in the year 2060.

Business concern for profit divides forest industry operations into two components. First, there is the mill or the profit centre where chemists, engineers and accountants pour their expertise and where new discoveries and new technologies can mean instant profits. The second component is the woodland operation, or what I would call the cost centre, where meeting government standards for regeneration is one of the costs of doing business, a cost to be kept to a minimum.

Even the concern for profitability is rarely tied to the profitability of one mill. The major forest product companies operating in Canada are affiliates of much larger corporate conglomerates. International firms like Canadian Pacific, Olympia and York and George Weston have planning horizons that do not include the future health of single-industry towns in northern Canada.

The track record of this kind of management is not good. Virtually every study on the forestry sector in the last 10 years has concluded that Canada in general, and Ontario specifically, is faced with an impending wood shortage. Report after report has estimated that as much as one third of Canada’s forest land is being lost to production because of unsuccessful regeneration programs. We cannot continue to put all our forests in one corporate basket. New methods of management, methods that combine local control with strong government leadership, are needed. That is why the resolution from my colleague makes so much sense.

Our provincial governments must begin to play a stronger role in ensuring a healthy crop of trees in the decades ahead. One way of doing that is as my colleague has suggested. There are other models that could be used as well to give more local control. I personally like the way in which the Algonquin Forestry Authority functions. I do not think we need to be monolithic or single-handed about the model we build. The member for Lake Nipigon has offered one.

The Algonquin Forestry Authority is another model that I personally like very much, where it is run basically on a nonprofit basis, markets the wood, and makes sure the wood is cut property and regenerated properly. I like very much that way of ensuring that our forests are replanted.

Until we design a system of forest management that combines strong government commitment to the forest with decentralized, locally controlled management, we will continue to have regeneration programs that are designed to fulfil minimum government standards rather than to guarantee a healthy forest for the generations to come.

For these reasons, I am proud to stand in my place this morning and support my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon, who I can say without hesitation has more trees in his constituency than people. As a matter of fact, he has more trees in his constituency than are in any other constituency in Ontario. I think he must have one of the largest constituencies in the province as well. I am not sure how large it is, but he truly has an enormous constituency and he has a very, very deep and abiding interest, as did his predecessor, Mr. Stokes, in the health of the forests all across northern Ontario.

Mr. Pollock: I would like to mention that I am really not the designated speaker on this motion. He did not show up. He must have got caught in traffic.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: We would rather hear from you anyway.

Mr. Pollock: Thanks. Anyway, I would like to say that I support this resolution. I think there should be local input on our forests. They are the people it affects and concerns. I certainly agree with the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and his concerns about the protection of our forests.

It has been said that insects destroy more trees in Ontario than man actually does. Therefore, we have to protect our forests from these insects such as the gypsy moth and the spruce budworm because they cause a lot of problems with our forests. It is a major concern of mine.

I appreciated the comments of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) when he paid tribute to the Algonquin Forest Authority in its efforts to actually protect and preserve Algonquin Park and only cut those mature trees. I have known some of the people who served on that particular forestry association and I think they are doing a terrific job.

Basically, that is all I have to say, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Adams: The member for Lake Nipigon’s resolution is based on the concept of a community forest. As a concept, this has a great deal going for it, the idea that local communities can manage the forest that surrounds them. In various parts of Europe, the community forest is commonplace. In the Alps, for example, in France, Switzerland and Austria, large tracts of forest are owned in common and managed by villages, cantons or whatever the local government is. The sides of the mountains in those areas are covered with manicured forests waiting for the villages to use them.

The concept of a community forest has real merit here in Ontario, but I know the member for Lake Nipigon knows deep in his heart that this concept cannot be simply transplanted from Europe to Canada. In Europe, there are centuries of common law behind their community forests. Centuries ago, for example, rights to private property and private use were given up in favour of communal rights. Similarly, the rights of other levels of government were given up to allow one village to protect its lands even against the better interests of surrounding villages.

Also, in Europe, the communal rights concerned are very narrowly related to forestry management and so these rights and these community forests greatly limit what we think of as multiple use of the forest resource or multiple use of all the resources of the lands concerned. We tend to think on this side that multiple use is most appropriate here in Ontario.

Lastly, the community forests of Europe, large though they may appear to the nonexpert at first sight, are tiny by comparison to the forests we deal with in Ontario. I understand that 87 percent of this province is still crown land. We have forests that are larger than whole countries in Europe. That huge scale involves an incredible variety of forest environment, of forest conditions. It is a diversity that cannot be addressed by one single, simplified, transplanted management approach, no matter how good that approach appears at first sight.

The common law situation in Ontario is special and it is already very complex. We have private property here and we have a very wide variety of well-established, existing, local forest management agreements. Many of those local agreements involve a great deal of local participation: My colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) has described some of the existing management approaches that the Ministry of Natural Resources has developed with a wide variety of local groups. As he has said, the ministry continues to develop and study a diverse range of such agreements.

I have great personal sympathy with the intent of the member for Lake Nipigon, but he knows that we cannot simply implement one simple community-based approach. I hope the member’s resolution will have the effect of increasing interest in all sorts of local management techniques, in all sorts of local involvement in resource management.

Having said that, I regret to say I cannot support the resolution.

Mr. Pouliot: My good friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin spends a full 10 minutes reading from a prepared billboard telling us about the reasons why he should support the resolution, but then, just as matter-of-factly, concludes that he cannot.

He cannot because: “I would have to go to his office with my ideas and come out of his office with his ideas and then, indeed, I would have a better chance. Of course, I cannot. It is a vision. It proposes an alternative. It defies the status quo. It has vision, planning. Promotion would follow soon. It would give us a boost. No, no. I prefer to sit in the near north in Manitoulin and count the 50 trees I have left in my riding,” or maybe there are a little more.

Miss Martel: Fifty-one.

Mr. Pouliot: Fifty-one. “I do not want to go up north. I do not want to go to the riding of Lake Nipigon. I do not want to go to Hudson Bay. I do not want to do that. I prefer to say, ‘Everything is well.’ Like an ostrich, I will bury my head in the sand and expose my rear end.”

No, no. That is not the policy of the future. That is not what he should be doing. He should travel up north and go to Domtar in Red Rock, then travel another 100 miles and go to Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay, then go into the forest, cut across and go to Longlac. Then he will feel the anxiety of the people asking: “Where are we going to be five years, 10 years, 15 years down the line? We must travel 100 miles to get a truck full of wood. Why is that?” It is very simple. Somebody has neglected the forests.

We have heard all the rhetoric. What we are seeing here is a new approach. It has been tried someplace else and it has worked. We want to give local people, the people of the north, a chance to make their decision. Had we farmed our forest resources, we would not be in this kind of dilemma. We would not face this impasse. There is nothing wrong in admitting, because the facts are there, that we have treated our forests and the people of the north in a cavalier fashion.

It is not a good example of how to manage and harvest resources: Cut and run; no planning for the future; decisions made elsewhere; as long as we can satisfy shareholders; the prices are up; play the commodities market; we are going to do well -- but do well for a while. What is going to happen 15 and 20 years down the line?

We cannot go across Bay Street and get a job at the other bank. That is all we have. We keep sending $12 billion a year elsewhere. We are getting some back, but we are not getting enough. It is patchwork. When the revenues are up, we get a little more, but there is no planning, no sense of vision and we do not have the feeling that the north is eternal. There are 51 communities in our riding alone. How many of them will still be there 10 or 15 years down the line if we do not farm our forests?

There is no need for that. We know that once is all in the mining sector; it is a finite resource. The first shovelful you take out of the ground, you are that much closer to extinction. That is a condition we relate to, a condition we accept in advance; but in terms of our forests it is an entirely different business.

With this resolution, the members have an opportunity to give local authority a chance to plan.

Mr. Brown: Local option.

Mr. Pouliot: I heard the member say “local option.” He should be ashamed of mentioning those words in this House.

I have searched long and hard for flaws associated with the resolution, and truly, I was unable to find any because it gives the recipe for a better future for the people of northern Ontario.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. J. M. Johnson moved resolution 48:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Attorney General should review the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to determine whether that legislation is adequate to meet the needs and redress the losses of victims. Such a review should take into account recommendations made by the standing committee on the Ombudsman (16th report, 1988); the standing committee on procedural affairs (Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions 7, December 1983); and the areas identified by the past chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board as requiring special attention, (board’s 17th report, 1985-86).

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will reserve a few minutes.

A headline in the Toronto Sun today highlights the need for this resolution. It reads, “He Could Kill Again.” If our society cannot provide more security and safety for its citizens, and I strongly encourage it to do so, then we have an added responsibility to make certain that the innocent victims of these criminals, and their families, receive fair and reasonable compensation.

The reasons for presenting this resolution are many, but the most important reason was a very personal experience dealing with a constituent’s need. A few years ago, a tragic case was brought to my attention by a young man, a constituent who was an unfortunate example of a victim of crime. I intend to be deliberately vague about the details of this terrible crime because this innocent victim has suffered enough and I do not want attract any more publicity to him or his young family.

This young man lived in a small community in his own home with his wife, his young two-and-a-half-year-old son and a baby daughter. One day he returned home from work and found his wife slashed to death, the young son hysterical and the daughter crying. Apparently, the next-door neighbour’s son, a convict who had just been released on parole, had broken into this young man’s home and slaughtered his wife with a butcher knife.

Imagine the terrible impact on this poor husband. His life was totally devastated. He had to give up his home and moved into my riding to live with his mother so she could look after her son and her grandchildren. In doing so, she had to completely change her life. She had to quit her job and devote her total time to her son’s family.

After a period of time, when he was finally able to accept the reality of the situation, through absolutely no fault of his own but entirely because he was the innocent victim of a terrible crime, the young man asked for my assistance.

I appealed to the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on behalf of my constituent. I was advised that they would contribute to the funeral expenses and if he needed psychiatric help they would pay for some sessions, but that was about the extent of what they had offered. When it was pointed out that my constituent’s mother had to quit her job to stay home and help her son look after the family, they expressed sympathy. I suggested that while monetary assistance to the family would not replace the wife and young mother, it might alleviate some of the pressing financial problems created by this criminal act.

Unfortunately, the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not have the right under the present legislation to make awards based on cases such as this, which they class as pain and suffering. They give lots of sympathy but no financial assistance.

Two chairmen of the board, Allan Grossman and Margaret Scrivener, both confirmed this negative decision. Mrs. Scrivener has consistently requested a revision of the board’s enabling legislation to address this very important issue.

I would like to make reference to the chairman’s report at this time. It is the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 17th report, 1985-86. It is addressed to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and it goes on to state that, “Since joining the board on May 1, 1985, and undertaking the review of operations necessary for a new chairman, three main areas requiring special attention have been identified.

“These are: revision of the board’s enabling legislation,” and that, sir, is the most important. The second is the “reduction of the backlog of cases;” and the third, “and certain administrative improvements.” That is signed by the chairman of the board of the day, Mrs. Margaret Scrivener. I might mention that at the present time there is a backlog of more than 3,500 cases.

This frustrating personal experience dealing with my inability to be of assistance to this young family -- a truly innocent victim of violent crime and in my opinion someone entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board -- encouraged me to work towards changing this legislation. I was also encouraged by many members of this Legislature, especially the members of the two committees I served on dealing with this board and I will make reference to these committees in a few minutes.

I might mention that I conducted a survey in my riding. It was a questionnaire that I sent out early in 1987. One of the questions that was asked was, “Should victims of crime be given financial compensation and restitution for injuries and loss resulting from the crimes?” Of the 2,426 who replied to this question, 73.2 per cent said yes; 11.1 per cent said no; and 15.7 per cent were undecided or did not respond. In answer, 1,770 citizens of my former riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel said victims of crime need more consideration.

I might make reference to an

article in the Toronto Star, October 22, 1988, “Violent Crimes Up 92 per cent in Five Years.” I will just quote the one paragraph, “Murders, sexual assaults, robberies and other violent crimes shot up more than 92 per cent in the last five years, a statistical study shows.”

I might also mention another

article in the press. This is Lorrie Goldstein’s

article from the Toronto Sun, May 31, 1988 -- “Victims Deserve Fair Play.”

“Criminals get their day in court. So should victims of crime. As Attorney General Ian Scott attempts to clear up the three-year backlog of 3,600 cases facing Ontario’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, he would do well to keep that in mind. Scott wants the CICB to handle a larger percentage of its cases simply by having a review of the paperwork involved rather than by holding full hearings.”

I go on to one paragraph:

“In response to criticism that he has not adequately funded the CICB, Scott notes he has doubled its annual budget, now $7.5 million, in two years,” and I give the Attorney General credit for doing so. “Still more people are making claims to the CICB than ever before, and these claims are increasingly complex. Scrivener, a former Tory cabinet minister, pushed constantly for more staff and resources for the CICB during her term as chairman.”

I would also like to make reference to a federal study. It was in a publication entitled Victims and Witnesses of Crime in Canada which was commissioned by the Department of Justice in Canada. I quote from one

section which deals with the results of a Canadian urban victim survey entitled Reported and Unreported Crime:

“The survey demonstrated that over one half of crimes were not reported. Reasons given for not reporting crimes included the view that the crime was too minor, the police could do nothing about the situation, that it was inconvenient or that the criminal justice system was too complex and too intimidating. Reasons for not reporting sexual assaults varied from the usual pattern. These victims stressed concern with negative attitudes of criminal justice officials and fear of revenge by offenders.”

If half of all crimes committed are not reported, then it follows that half the victims of crime receive no consideration whatsoever. Surely this is an indictment of our judicial system and demonstrates an urgent need to address this injustice.

I will refer to a couple of sections from the 16th report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, 1988. Subsection 17(1): “In determining whether to make an order for compensation and the amount thereof, the board shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including any behaviour of the victim that may have directly or indirectly contributed to his injury or death.”

When our committee was meeting this

section created a very major problem and many of the members felt that indeed, if for no other reason, that should be opened up to deal with that section.

In the recommendations of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, number one states that it is very important, “That the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board award appropriate compensation to the complainant for loss of income and pain and suffering as a result of injuries sustained by him.” That is the one that would have reflected on the innocent victim that I mentioned earlier.

There is another

section that I will refer to briefly, and I will quote from the report: “in the board’s view, this section” 25(1) “does not allow it to reopen a matter and make an award awarding compensation where no order of compensation was made in the first instance. The board,” and that is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, “says that as there is no other authority in the act which can be employed to accomplish the Ombudsman’s and now the committee’s recommendation, the board is legally unable to act to implement the recommendation.”

In other words, while the board supports the thrust of the Ombudsman and the standing committee on the Ombudsman, legally it has no right to implement the recommendations. That is another reason the act should be opened, so that

section can be dealt with as well.

The committee also suggests that an amendment be made to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act by deleting the words “for payment of compensation” in subsection 25(1). The committee believes that this statute, as presently written, unnecessarily hampers the board’s ability to re-examine cases where no award of compensation has been made. On behalf of my constituent I appealed to the board to give consideration, and this is the very

section it pointed to. It was unable to comply with my request.

The committee recommends “that the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act be amended by deleting the words ‘for payment of compensation’ from subsection 25(1),” recommendation 9. There are several other recommendations and these can be dealt with by the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act when it is reviewed. Possibly some of the other members who served on either or both of these committees will make appropriate comments when the time comes.

I would now like to make reference to the standing committee on procedural affairs report number 7 on agencies, boards and commissions. This report was tabled in the Legislature on December 15, 1983. I will just make one reference to this report. I will quote this section:

“Criminal injuries compensation boards are a relatively new phenomenon in Canada. Most have been in existence not much longer than a decade and have operated within the scope of existing legislation. In the last few years, a debate has been initiated as to the adequacy of present institutions, methods and procedures in the treatment of victims of crime. A thorough analysis of these issues together with recommendations was recently prepared by the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Justice for Victims of Crime.

The task force concluded that the justice system in Canada, with its present practices tended to ‘neglect the needs and concerns of victims of crime.’” That is most important. We “neglect the needs and concerns of victims of crime.”

“The recommendations of the federal-provincial task force will undoubtedly be studied by the appropriate Ontario authorities, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Provincial Secretary for Justice. It is in the context of such review that the committee believes that a review of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act be conducted and that such a review deal with all aspects of the act, including such matters as the criteria for eligibility, maximum payments, the criteria for receiving compensation under the head of pain and suffering and other such related matters. “

There were other recommendations made by the committee, but those are some of the most important.

I will just make one other reference and then reserve a few minutes.

At the present time there is federal legislation, Bill C-89. This act received first reading on November 5, 1987, and was passed by the House of Commons on May 3, 1988. Bill C-89 makes several references to supporting the need for assistance to victims of crime. I would just like to comment on two.

This has been presented by the Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He says:

“I have offered to more than double the federal contribution to provincial criminal injury compensation schemes and to fund a new victims assistance fund. This commitment will involve $27.2 million over three years. This is a near tripling of federal money in this area.”

I will make one other reference. It makes three recommendations; this is the fourth. “They will require the courts to consider restitution in all cases involving damage, loss or destruction of property and bodily harm, thereby removing the need for the victim to apply for restitution.”

I think because of the federal legislation, because of the two reports we have from the standing committee on the Ombudsman and the standing committee on procedural affairs and because most members certainly respect the fact that there is not enough consideration given to the victims of crime, that a hearing process into this act is in order. I appeal to the members of this Legislature to give consideration to having the Attorney General send it to a committee possibly to do that very thing.

I will reserve the rest of my time.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise and join in this debate, particularly with respect to ballot item 42.

I have carefully read the resolution of the honourable member for Wellington requesting the Attorney General to review the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act in order to make certain that the legislation is adequate to meet the needs and redress the losses of victims. The resolution goes on to say what we should focus in on, that is, basically, certain recommendations made by other committees.

I have had the opportunity of reviewing some of those recommendations and I hope that in the time allotted to me, I will be able to deal with some of those recommendations. I would like to state at the outset that I stand here in support of this resolution. I stand in support of the comments made in the resolution, but I would also like to indicate that this particular resolution, though very important and well worded and extremely crucial to not only victims of crime in this province but in general to all of the public of this province, is one which has been done by the Attorney General since this Attorney General became Attorney General.

The Attorney General and the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board have continued to reanalyse, reassess and re-examine the aspect of whether the legislation does meet the needs of the people for whom it was designed. I would like, if I might, to refer to some of the recommendations made in keeping with the resolution of the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson).

In its report on agencies, boards and commissions in 1983, the standing committee on procedural affairs recommended that a review of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act be conducted and that such a review deal with all aspects of the act. In particular, the committee recommended that in all jurisdictions where maximum limits on awards are imposed, those limits should be reviewed regularly to ensure that they keep pace with the cost of living. In addition, the committee recommended that the Attorney General, in co-operation with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act with the objective of raising the limits on awards.

I think it is important for us all to remember that at that time the existing limitation of awards had not changed since the act was passed. It was this Attorney General who, very early into his first appointment as Attorney General in November 1986, introduced amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act wherein the limits on monthly payments to victims of crime were substantially increased.

I think it is important to refer back to that time because on that occasion, the Attorney General remarked: “This government is committed to assisting victims of crime and I am delighted that we have been able to demonstrate this commitment in a very practical and important way. This is the first increase victims of crime have had in 15 years; it is long overdue. This legislation ... will put Ontario in the forefront of North American jurisdictions which seek to compensate their citizens for the costs of violent crimes.

“Under the legislation introduced by the Attorney General, the maximum award for monthly payments to a victim of crime doubled. The maximum lump sum award for any one victim was increased. Additionally, the maximum award for all victims in respect of any one occurrence was increased.

This does not mean to say that we are at the end of the road of analysis and examination. It is to say that this Attorney General and this government have, as time proceeds, demonstrated a continuation of such an analysis and such a reassessment. The legislation must continue, as best as possible, to address the needs of the victims of crime. The actions of this government and the Attorney General clearly, and I believe unmistakably, demonstrate that there is that commitment.

I would like, if I might, to refer to a further recommendation brought forward by the committee. That recommendation dealt with the question of public awareness in terms of what the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is. The committee recommended in 1983 that a campaign should be launched in each jurisdiction to acquaint citizens as fully as possible with the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and its purposes. That is an extremely important recommendation. The police should be required to provide victims of crime with information on the existence and purpose of the board. Hospitals and other institutions and agencies should be urged to support the police in doing so.

Since 1983, the board has been actively involved in such an awareness campaign. The past chairman made frequent speaking engagements. An information brochure entitled We Care about the Victims of Crime, which I happen to have before me, and a poster entitled People Just Don’t Bounce Back, were introduced. More than 50,000 copies of this brochure have been distributed to police stations, hospitals, rape crisis centres, the homes for battered women and children’s aid societies across the province. Wallet information cards were mailed out to police officers.

Very important, and I believe the honourable member for Wellington alluded to this, board activities have increasingly been reported in the newspapers, on the radio and on television.

Under the present chairman, the board is working closely with the communications branch in developing and implementing an effective communications plan. I think it speaks quite highly of the chairman of the board that, upon learning we are dealing with this resolution, he has come to the Legislature today and is in the members’ gallery listening to this resolution, listening to the concerns of members in dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I think it speaks highly of the commitment, determination and effort that the current chairman is going to bring to that particular position.

All police chiefs in Ontario have been canvassed. Their needs, in terms of brochures and wallet cards have been responded to. The board has asked the Ontario Police Commission to provide courses and information to police officers on the role of the board and the means by which applications may be made for compensation. Of extreme importance, in an address to the Ontario Police College, Aylmer, the current chairman has requested an inclusion of the board’s role in the college curriculum.

The board is intent on developing a new format for its December 1989 annual report and is considering new methods to address the committee’s findings, all with a view to informing the public of this province of the existence of such a board, what its purpose is and what it is designed to meet, as well as reassessing, reanalysing and revisiting the legislation to make certain it meets the needs of the people for which it was designed.

I think very much that the Ontario government has shown its commitment to improving and to continue to improve the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I have spoken of a few of the recommendations of the agencies and the committees alluded to in the resolution by the honourable member for Wellington. I am confident that this government, the current chairman of the board, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Attorney General himself have demonstrated over the years a commitment and a determination to reanalyse, reassess and revisit this legislation in order to make certain it meets the needs of the people for whom it was designed and I am confident this will continue in the future.

Mr. Jackson: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Wellington. For those at home who have just tuned in to these proceedings, I should explain that we are debating a call for a review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board so that the Attorney General can look at ways of improving services to victims of crimes.

As the Conservative MPP responsible for women’s issues, I support the call for this review, not because I disagree with the board’s concept and not because I object seriously to its current method of operation; rather, I think any government agency requires regular review and monitoring so that any problems can be identified and corrected. Over the next few minutes, I would like to voice some of my concerns about criminal injuries compensation in this province and make suggestions for its review.

First, I believe the board needs the power to reverse an initial decision denying compensation.

As all members are aware, a crime victim’s medical condition or financial stability can deteriorate over time. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board must therefore retain the flexibility to increase compensation after an order is made, and what is already a power in the statute should be given more meaning and more life.

But the board also needs the power to make an order of compensation after initially denying one, if changed circumstances so warrant. This June, the all-party standing committee on the Ombudsman recommended an amendment to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act that would give the board this badly needed flexibility. I support that recommendation and hope it will be studied carefully during the review.

The second point is that there must be greater public awareness of the board’s existence and the services it provides.

In 1983, another standing committee of the Legislature recommended that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board “strengthen the public’s awareness of the board and its function of compensating victims of violent crime.”

I realize that over the years the board has taken great strides in the area of public awareness and that the number of applications continues to increase, but those applying for compensation still make up but a small minority of all crime victims in Ontario. For example, one in four women will be the victim of sexual assault in her lifetime, yet in 1986-87 there were only 258 sexual assault victims applying for compensation. One in 10 women lives in an environment of domestic violence, and child abuse is an equally serious problem, yet in 1986-87 there were only 88 applications brought on behalf of child abuse victims in this province.

The following story of one child abuse victim who received $15,500 from the board appeared this week in the Toronto Star of November 15. I would like to quote from that article.

“She loved school -- but for secret, ghastly reasons.

“For Tammy Wilkieson, a grade 3 student with a fistful of As each term, school meant a break from home. Especially on Thursdays.

“Thursday was the day her stepfather would rape her.

“Thursday after Thursday ... he would knock on her bedroom door, order her to come to his temporarily vacant bed and force her to have sex with him ... Tammy is her real name. She insists the Star use it, for reasons that are key to her recovery.”

The

article goes on and quotes her social worker, Jan Heinrichs, who explains the importance of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to Tammy’s recovery. Tammy is now 25 years old. The board, which often has been described as a well-kept secret, is one way ‘incest survivors can have the satisfaction of having society acknowledge that what has happened to them is unacceptable,’ says Heinrichs. ‘...Society is telling Tammy that sexual abuse is not acceptable and that what happened to you was a terrible thing and we want to help you.’”

Ontario is full of victims like Tammy. To them, an award is more than financial compensation. It is society’s recognition that a crime took place and a statement that that crime is unacceptable. It is an important part of the emotional and psychological healing process for victims.

But for too many victims, the board is still a well-kept secret. How many Tammys remain unaware of our criminal injuries compensation system? Hopefully, the review called for by my colleague the member for Wellington will come up with new ways to publicize the board and the services it provides to victims of violent crime.

Third, there must be greater participation by criminals to pay back to victims in the compensation process.

My biggest concern about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is that criminals are not paying their fair share of awards to victims. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has a statutory right to recover awards by taking criminals to court. In theory, this allows victims to receive compensation up front, without delay, and allows the board to sue the criminals afterward to recover the damages. Unfortunately, the theory is far from practice and too many criminals escape the financial consequences of their acts.

Understandably, moneys cannot be recovered if the criminal cannot be located or if he has neither assets nor income, but even where the offender can be located and does have a job, more often than not no attempt will be made to recover the award.

In the last year for which statistics were available, we have been able to determine that the board paid out $4.3 million to victims in Ontario. Less than $62,000 was recovered from criminals. In other words, 98.5 per cent of the costs of violent crime are borne by society and by law-abiding citizens, and only 1.5 per cent of those costs are borne by the criminals themselves. That is not just and that is not fair. Criminals must pay their share of victim compensation.

There is a need for a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Ontario and there is a need for prompt and full payments to victims, but when an award has been paid and the criminal is located, there is no excuse for the board’s failure to use its legal right to recover those moneys. The federal Conservative government has made great strides with its recent Criminal Code amendments, Bill C-89, but here at the provincial level we have a similar obligation to ensure that when compensation is necessary the offender pays up.

Over the past few months, my office has been conducting a study of criminal injuries compensation in jurisdictions around the world. I hope the review being requested by my colleague the member for Wellington will consider some of the positive features of other systems.

For example, in Victoria, Australia, the compensation tribunal can order an offender to refund an award without the need to take him to court. In South Australia, the criminal injuries compensation system is partially funded by a special surtax levied on criminals. In New South Wales, a government task force recommended in 1986 that the state garnishee a portion of the wages paid to prison inmates in order to partially refund any payments made to their victims.

Ontario borrowed the concept of criminal injuries compensation from other Commonwealth nations. Now we can learn from their incorporation of offender participation into the compensation process. Common sense suggests it, fairness supports it and justice demands it.

Since 1971, Ontario has operated one of the finest victim compensation schemes in the world. I am proud of that. I am proud it was instituted by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Yet any program, especially after 17 years, can benefit from review and reform.

I support this resolution fully in the hope that the Attorney General will examine some of the problems I have identified so that together we can make our criminal injuries compensation system more flexible, more accessible and more just.

Mr. Kanter: I would like to commend the member for Wellington for his resolution on the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

I would also like to commend him for putting his case in very personal and moving terms. I think sometimes we get entirely caught up in reports, and the member for Wellington had some personal knowledge and experience with this particular matter.

I was interested that the member noted one of the past chairmen of the board was the honourable Allan Grossman, the former member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, the father of the honourable Larry Grossman and a public official in this province who was very involved in both the correctional and victims’ side of this issue.

I would also note, and I believe my colleague noted, that the current chair of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Wendy Calder, is here listening to the debate and she will bring her extensive municipal and police commission experience to this issue.

My colleague the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) has responded to many of the concerns raised by the member for Wellington, but I would like to indicate some of the initiatives that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and police forces in this province have taken in this extremely important area. Indeed, the Solicitor General has identified assistance to victims of crime, particularly domestic crime, as one of her top priorities.

Just before I catalogue some of the initiatives the police have taken, I would like to make two general comments to perhaps broaden a little the resolution by my colleague the member for Wellington.

First, I would note that financial assistance is a crucial, but sometimes not the only component of assistance required by victims of crime. They may need social services, counselling, the assistance offered by self-help groups. I would say, particularly in the case of the type of sickening and gruesome crimes described by my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), that nonfinancial assistance may be as important or more important than financial assistance. I would also note that in some cases, witnesses of crimes might require some assistance.

I would note first, and my colleague the member for Mississauga North referred to this, that a training program for all police in the province on victims has been instituted. The program, known as Consider the Victim, includes videotapes and workbooks. It is offered not just to new recruits but to all police officers in the province. Within the next year or so, every police officer in the province -- there are 17,000 municipal police officers and members of the Ontario Provincial Police -- will have received this training. This includes, but goes beyond, information about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Second, there is a brochure by our ministry that provides information for victims and witnesses. It certainly mentions the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and how a victim can get in touch with that board. It goes beyond that and provides information about other institutions in that area: family service organizations, welfare agencies, interval and transition houses, alcohol and drug addiction foundations, and many, many others. Of course, the written information should be supplemented by information from the police involved.

It contains a very handy location for information about the police force: investigating officer’s name, badge number, occurrence number; information that will be useful to the Criminal injuries Compensation Board or to insurance companies or to other sources as well. It complements the brochure produced by the Attorney General entitled We Care for Victims of Crime, which describes the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in greater detail.

I would like also to bring to the attention of the member for Wellington and other members of the House the victim crisis assistance and referral services offered directly by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. There are three pilot projects, in Brant county, Frontenac county and Algoma district, where victims are provided with assistance and referral to various agencies, including, of course, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

In addition, there are efforts by various municipal police forces. The emergency community service offered by the Metro Toronto Police Force has two components, professional social workers or volunteers, depending on the severity of the offence and the needs of the victim. These services are initiated by the Metro police and provided by the Salvation Army, a community agency with a long record of assistance in this area.

I also want to point out, and this is something I did a small bit of research on, that victim assistance is an integral part of police service in Metro. It is part of the general occurrence report. I am reading from the Metro Toronto Police general occurrence report. There is an extensive mention of the victim and various data that are gathered. The police officer has to check off whether a victim pamphlet was issued. The police officer has to indicate whether the victim witness assistance program was referred to.

We are trying, through our ministry, through the Ontario Provincial Police, which has a standing order dealing directly with the subject, and through municipal police forces to ensure that all victims are aware of the assistance offered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and indeed are aware of other sources of assistance as well, in some cases assistance which may be even more helpful than financial assistance. I understand that other police forces, such as the Peel Regional Police Force and Durham Regional Police Force, have instituted their own programs in this area.

There was some comment on the amount of funds required. Substantial additional money, both federal and provincial, has been put into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In 1979-80, the total awards were about $2.5 million, in 1988-89 about $10 million. Administrative costs are borne entirely by the province. They have increased as well.

The backlog which was referred to by one of my colleagues has been reduced; it is still too long, but it has been reduced. In addition to putting more money into the program, we are exploring means of expediting awards by using documentary evidence rather than formal hearings in cases where it is appropriate. I understand that it is the need for extensive documentation that has caused part of the backlog, that the actual backlog of cases ready to proceed is only several hundred rather than the several thousand referred to by one of my colleagues.

There also have been reforms at the federal level in terms of help to make the task easier for victims of crime. Photographic evidence is now allowed. There is provision for a fine surcharge, victim impact statements and restitution. These are very new provisions, but they are certainly being administered by the province. While they were passed by the federal House of Commons, of course, they require the co-operation and the education of police forces, both provincial and municipal, and the provincial justice system.

In fact, these measures have been proclaimed only very recently, October 1 for most of the provisions; the restitution provision will not be proclaimed until January 1989. These provisions, the provision for restitution and the provision for fine surcharges, I think, will go some way to meet some of the concerns of my colleague the member for Burlington South.

In

summary, this government is deeply concerned about the rights of victims and witnesses of crime. My colleague has described the extensive efforts of the Attorney General to improve the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board’s systems and procedures and in reviewing the legislation.

I have tried to describe the efforts of the Solicitor General and the police force in this province to further assist victims of crime. I have tried to emphasize that while financial compensation is important, it is not the only concern of victims of crime, and we are trying to meet these other needs as well.

The review proposed by the member for Wellington has commenced. Indeed, in some ways, it is perhaps a little broader than the review he has requested, and we will continue the review he has proposed. For that reason, I am pleased to support his resolution.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to add my support as well to the member for Wellington’s initiative today and say that it is always timely for the House to be reminded of the needs of victims of crime. Too often our citizens get the sense that the laws of the land perhaps protect the criminal more than they do the victim; we are continually having that thrown back at us as legislators.

Unfortunately, too often as well we as legislators and governments have dealt with the issue, when raised, with public relations approaches to the problem rather than dealing with the substantive concerns people have around how we compensate victims of crime. I think that has changed somewhat over the past four or five years. In the 10 years I have been here in the Legislature, in the early period of time it was much more a PR exercise than it was a real, active compensation program with all the ancillary supports that are required to make victims feel that the system of justice is not weighted against them rather than the perpetrators of crime in the country.

There are a few comments I would like to make. The member has rightfully said that it is presently time for a review of the act. I am glad to hear from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) that this review is ongoing, but sometimes we get confused about what the concept of a review is. If it is just a matter of somebody sitting at home one night rereading the act and looking things over, but not really thinking about a major revision in the sense of action on

an act, then that is something we would not want to condone in this House.

There have been recommendations, as the member for Wellington has said, from committees of this House, back in 1983 and most recently in 1988 from the standing committee on the Ombudsman, suggesting that it is time for changes to the act, that there are limitations on the board, specifically in terms of what it can or cannot do, and that these are changes which can be easily moved on. One would not find within this chamber an ideological difference of opinion at all in terms of facilitating the powers of the board to more adequately compensate and take into account a broader range of concerns than it is able to presently under the legislation.

I hope that while a review is being undertaken by the Attorney General and while the Solicitor General and the police forces are trying to do a number of things to make things better, we might in fact be gearing ourselves to some changes in legislation and a focus for debate here that would not be just on a resolution in private members’ hour but around specific government action that is being taken.

I think the people of the province are in real need of hearing from us that this is not something to which we just give lipservice, on which we place some TV ads and nominally give some minor financial compensation to individuals in the province, but rather is something important enough to have legislative change, legislative enactment and debate.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick says there has been a large increase in the amount of money that is actually within the budget now, from $2 million to $10 million, but that is over the course of a decade, I would remind the member. If we were to look at some of the cost-of-living changes during that period, the actual increase in support is not as high as I would hope this government might think a priority. When we look at the amounts of compensation that people actually get under criminal compensation compared with the amounts that they are able to get under, say, workers’ compensation or other kinds of programs that are out there, they are usually infinitesimally small.

It has always been a principle of mine that if one becomes disabled in this province, there should be more equality in terms of the financial outcomes for that individual than we have presently. At the moment, we have this enormous range whereby if you are on family benefits and disabled you get a certain amount that keeps you well below the poverty line. If you happen to qualify for Canada pension, you may in fact be able to get to around the poverty line.

If you had a good job before you were injured, and if you were injured at work and you can prove it and get workers’ compensation, then you are likely to get a wage which will keep you above the poverty line, depending on the meat chart determinations about how extensively you are injured. But if you are injured as a result of a crime, it is highly unlikely that the money you will be given to compensate you for that will go anywhere near meeting your actual real costs as a newly disabled person in our society.

Within that context I think it is really important to talk about, as have the reports that the member for Wellington alludes to, psychological pain and suffering that victims of crime endure. Any of us who has been robbed -- and in this day and age that probably comes down to a majority of people in the Legislature -- know that sense of incredible violation which you feel personally when your home is broken into and things which are of importance to you to one degree or another are taken.

It is not so much the loss of the piece of jewellery -- in my case, I remember it was a typewriter that at one time was taken -- it is more the sense that your space was violated, that somehow you are no longer secure.

For a victim of crime in the more serious cases where there is actual physical violence perpetrated on that individual, the psychological effects are enormous and incredibly long-lasting. All the studies and follow-up that have been done around the victims of crime, especially in the United States, show that the enormous, lifelong damage that can be put on people is something which our compensation system does not recognize as it should.

I would just like to say that it is time, not just for a review internally by the ministry but for initiatives and a focus for debate in terms of legislative change to be brought forward to this chamber so that we can all focus more correctly on this issue and, hopefully, make those who are victims of crime out there get an extra psychological assist from the sense that they know that their members of provincial parliament are focusing on that issue, think it is of importance, want to provide the kinds of supports that will assist them to survive and continue to flourish in our society after a calamitous, usually unpremeditated -- no sense that it was going to happen to them -- kind of incident that has changed their lives for ever.

I welcome the member for Wellington’s resolution. I presume that all members of this House will support it. I would just say that I hope a strict

interpretation of what the word “review” means is not taken by the ministry, but rather that it sees this as in fact something that will initiate action which will come back to this Legislature for our support.

Mr Speaker: There is still a minute, left, if any other member wishes to participate. If not, I know the member for Wellington has reserved a little less than two minutes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by thanking the member for Mississauga North, the member for Burlington South, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) for their Support of the resolution.

I would like to congratulate the Attorney General for taking some positive steps, but more are needed. I would like to congratulate the new chairperson of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Mrs. Wendy Calder, and wish her well in the future.

A review is needed to consider the recommendations made by the standing committee on procedural affairs, the standing committee on the Ombudsman, the Office of the Ombudsman and indeed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I hope the Attorney General will take into consideration the fact that all these bodies have made recommendations that do deserve some consideration. The new federal legislation, Bill C-89, should be taken into consideration too.

The main thrust of a review has to be the board’s enabling legislation, to allow the board to do the things that the different committees have made recommendations on and certainly dealing with the concern I raised about my constituent. I am hopeful that the Attorney General will direct a committee of this Legislature, possibly the standing committee on administration of justice, to review the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

I thank the members for their support.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on the two items of private members’ public business. As members know, the standing order says we should deal with these at 12 o’clock. It is so close, I presume all members would be agreeable.

Agreed to.

COMMUNITY-BASED RESOURCE AUTHORITIES

The House divided on Mr. Pouliot’s motion of resolution 50 which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bryden, Charlton, Epp, Grier, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Mackenzie, Martel, Philip, E., Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Villeneuve.

Nays

Adams, Black, Bossy, Brown, Chiarelli, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Elliot, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, Matrundola, McClelland, Miller, Morin, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, Owen, Poole, Roberts, South, Tatham.

Ayes 15; nays 30.

Motion negatived.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Speaker: Mr. J. M. Johnson has moved resolution 48.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:05 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Laughren: The Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons provides forgivable loans to home owners to renovate their homes for disabled access. The importance of such a program for increasing the accessible housing stock for disabled persons speaks for itself. Without new housing starts, renovations of existing housing stock to accommodate an ageing population and disabled persons seeking a life of independence in the community is absolutely essential.

Understandably, the demand for this program has been widespread. Essentially, the home renewal program for disabled persons grants loans of up to $15,000 to approved home owners with gross family incomes below $45,000 for making homes or apartments in owner-occupied homes accessible. The loan is forgivable if the renovated home is not sold for five years after the award of the loan.

As of September 30, 1988, 751 applicants have been approved for the provincial program. There is now a recognized waiting list of 525 eligible applications. This program is clearly needed and clearly underfunded. Municipalities that participate in the application programs have simply been telling those interested in the program that there is no point in applying for six more months, because the money has run out. Toronto, for example, has 171 qualified applicants waiting at this very moment. In my own constituency office, there is seldom a week goes by that I do not have someone come in seeking an application.

EXPO 2000

Mr. Sterling: It is with a great deal of dismay that I recently learned that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in a letter to the Prime Minister, has come out in support of Toronto in its bid for an Expo world fair in the year 2000. I am dismayed and disappointed because the Premier knows full well that Ottawa was also bidding to host this world exposition.

The federal government has said it will make only one bid for the turn-of-the-century world fair and that it is up to the Ontario government to decide which city it will support. Obviously, that decision has been made.

Toronto is a very dynamic city, but it is not the only city capable of hosting events of this magnitude. Why has this government forgotten about the nation’s capital nestled in eastern Ontario. When will Ottawa get an opportunity to benefit from some of the perks afforded only to Toronto?

Toronto hosted the economic summit. It is building the domed stadium, with $30 million coming from the taxpayers all over the province, and of course, Toronto is bidding for the 1996 Olympic games. Is it necessary that the province support its bid on both the Olympics and the world’s fair?

I forgot to mention that the Premier did want the space agency in the Ottawa area. Unfortunately, he let everyone else get in line ahead of him. His pitch was of little value by the time it was delivered.

To the Premier of Ontario and the government of Ontario: Ontario does not end at the borders of Metropolitan Toronto.

PRAYERS IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Velshi: I wish to comment today on a member’s statement made in this Legislature on November 1 by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) concerning the Lord’s Prayer. The member stated that this prayer is perhaps dated and anachronistic and went on to speak on behalf of a minority of people within this House.

As a member of a minority religious group within this Legislature, I wish to inform members, in particular the member for Scarborough West, that I have no objection whatsoever to the opening ceremonies of this Legislature, and to suggest changing the prayer at the beginning of each session is sure to be divisive and counterproductive. I fear that the end result might be to eliminate prayers altogether, and that would be wrong.

I would like to note that I do not need the member for Scarborough West speaking on my behalf on this or any other sensitive matter. Since the final decision to act on the member’s suggestion is yours, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that if a review of our proceedings is being considered, let it be a change to rotational prayers rather than eliminating prayer altogether.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Reville: Ambulance officers from communities across Ontario are visiting the provincial Legislature to demand changes in the ambulance system. They are members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Two days ago, a report on ambulance service found a deep malaise within the province’s ambulance services. It was commissioned by OPSEU and followed public hearings in eight centres in late 1987 and early 1988.

The ambulance officers will also be seeking an end to the 15-week-old strike by OPSEU Local 207 against the ambulance service in Halton-Mississauga. They are seeking wage parity with ambulance officers employed by neighbouring Metropolitan Toronto.

Following the visits to MPPs, representatives of the ambulance group will be available immediately outside the legislative chamber at the end of today’s question period.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Jackson: Members of the Halton community are shocked and outraged that a 17-year-old triple murderer is being given unescorted day passes that allow him to travel through my riding of Burlington South on his way to work in Hamilton. Halton residents have good reason to be concerned. A young murderer well known to the media and politicians, who cannot be identified, has been getting day passes since June. Last week, two other inmates escaped. Today, we read in a Toronto newspaper that the inmates are practically running the Syl Apps treatment centre.

My own city of Burlington used to take pride in the fact that it was one of the safest cities in Ontario, yet there have been three killings since 1987, some associated with day passes. It is understandable that my constituents are worried and upset, and the last thing they want to hear is that a young triple murderer is walking the streets of Halton by himself, a triple murderer described by a corrections officer as “so dangerous it’s unbelievable. He could kill again, without a doubt.”

Residents of Halton need to be reassured that our criminal Justice system works and that law-abiding citizens are safe both on the streets and inside their homes. All levels of government, therefore, have a responsibility to ensure that this is the case.

CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

Mr. Offer: It gives me great pleasure to rise today in order to recognize and honour the Canadian National Institute for the Blind on this 70th year of its existence. With a proud history, the CNIB has grown and matured into a first-class, front-line service agency with a client population in Ontario of over 24,000 individuals, the majority of whom are over 60 years of age. Just as important is the outstanding contribution made by the thousands of trained volunteers, whose commitment and vitality maintain the excellence of this institution.

The resources and services provided are many. Suffice it to say that there are over 10,000 volunteers providing services in a variety of ways. While these accomplishments are impressive, the challenges for the CNIB remain. The special needs for the blind and visually impaired children must be met so that they can participate in the educational process, so that employment opportunities and career development plans will be in place for younger adults and so that older adults are encouraged to remain self-reliant through the use of technology and assistance available through sight enhancement services.

The CNIB is currently addressing these challenges in a committed and determined way, a way that not only meets the needs of the blind and visually impaired but also allows those individuals to reach their full potential.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

C’est une réalisation dont nous pouvons tous être fiers puisque cette loi a été adoptée unanimement par les membres de la législature, le 18 novembre 1986.

Mais pour atteindre les objectifs que nous nous sommes fixés, nous avons besoin de l’appui constant de la communauté francophone de notre province. Elle aussi a un rôle à jouer pour assurer le succès de cette entreprise.

C’est pourquoi j’invite tous les francophones à s’engager dans la mise en oeuvre de la Loi. Pour ce faire, ils n’ont qu’a faire appel aux services qui sont déjà disponibles auprès des bureaux-chefs et des bureaux régionaux des ministères situés dans les 22 régions désignées par la Loi.

Les francophones sont conscients de l’importance de leur participation au succès de la Loi. Ils nous ont indiqué clairement que c’est un défi qu’ils entendent relever avec détermination.

De fait, j’aimerais profiter de cette occasion pour remercier les organismes et les individus qui nous ont accordé leur appui au cours des deux dernières années. J’adresse aussi des remerciements à tous ceux et celles qui out pris le temps de nous écrire et de nous communiquer directement leurs commentaires. Leur soutien a été fortement apprécié par toutes les personnes engagées, de près ou de loin, dans la mise en oeuvre.

Notre attention est maintenant tournée vers l’avenir et sur le travail qu’il nous reste à accomplir au cours de la prochaine année. Oui, il y a encore bien des choses à faire, mais nous entreprenons ces tâches avec un dynamisme renouvelé.

La Loi reconnaît l’apport des francophones au développement de la société ontarienne, et c’est pourquoi nous sommes heureux de contribuer à la sauvegarde de la langue et de la culture de nos francophones.

Tomorrow will mark the second anniversary of the enactment of Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, which proclaims the commitment of this Legislature to preserve the culture and language heritage of French-speaking Ontarians.

While the act guarantees the use of French in designated Ontario government institutions, there is perhaps no field where this guarantee will have a more personal or profound impact than in health are.

I am pleased to announce in the House today that my ministry is funding a new French language community health centre for Metropolitan Toronto. Centre médico-social communautaire will provide services that will be available to 70,000 French-speaking residents of Metro Toronto.

Our ministry has found that community health centres, or CHCs, improve access to health care for target groups at the local level, We see this community health centre as the nucleus for French-language health services in Metro Toronto. My ministry will provide $44,000 in startup operating funding and $183,000 in capital funding. My ministry will provide approximately $1.3 million in annual operating funding when the centre is fully operational.

Services will be provided by family doctors, nurses and specialists, starting next year. Emphasis will be placed on health education and health promotion, and allied services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and counselling will be phased in over several years. In addition,

interpretation and accommodation services will be provided to French-speaking patients travelling to Toronto for specialized care.

As members will know, one of the challenges we face in offering health services in French is the shortage of French-speaking health professionals in Ontario.

The Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities has now arranged for the admission of Ontario students in health programs to Quebec universities. Up to 100 seats in medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, audiology/speech-language pathology and social work, for education in the French language, have been secured.

Our next priority is to promote this new program and make Ontario candidates aware of this opportunity. A ministry representative is visiting every French-speaking or bilingual high school in Ontario to take this message to students, parents and teachers.

French-language services are especially vital in the field of mental health, where successful treatment can depend on the quality of communication between doctor and patient. The ministry now provides funds for 25 community mental health programs and eight addiction programs that offer services in French.

The Ministry of Health is now actively working to honour our commitment to equitable access to health care in the French language.

COMPUTERS-IN-EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am pleased to announce further policy changes to my ministry’s computers-in-education grants program.

I believe that under previous policy we have not been receiving a great enough value for our education dollars. The changes I am announcing today will permit school boards to pursue more cost-effective purchasing strategies more closely geared to the educational needs of our students.

School boards will be able to increase their purchasing power by up to $130 million, because they will now have the flexibility to purchase less expensive computers capable of serving specific needs in our classrooms. With this step, we will be able to move much more rapidly towards our long-range goal of providing each student with 30 minutes of instructional computer time per day.

Starting in 1989, school boards will be permitted to allocate up to 25 per cent of their computer grants to the purchase of less expensive equipment that meets specific needs, such as business and computer studies, database analysis and word processing.

In addition, school boards will now have the flexibility to use up to five per cent of their computer grants for the purchase of specialized equipment that can better serve the needs of exceptional pupils and the unique training needs of students enrolled in technological courses.

Boards will thus be able to apply a portion of their grants to assist in the purchase of special computers that will allow the blind, the deaf and the physically disabled to develop skills that will be of particular value to them in the world of work, and school boards that want to revitalize their technological studies programs will be permitted to apply a portion of their grants towards such high-tech equipment as computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing and robotics.

Finally, I will be providing school boards with the option of spending up to five per cent of their grants on related in-service training for teachers to help them acquire a greater understanding of and familiarity with the use of computers. This training will also help our teachers to better integrate ministry-licensed software and commercial software into the curriculum.

The steps I took in July to open our computer program to more manufacturers, followed by the policy changes I am announcing today, represent a bold move forward. School boards will be given greater flexibility to seek out equipment that precisely meets student needs. The interest of Ontario taxpayers will be advanced by developing much more cost-effective purchasing policies. Teachers will benefit by gaining access to funds for in-service training.

Perhaps most important, our children will benefit by being able to leave our schools confident in their ability to live and work in a world filled with information technology. Rather than being overwhelmed by that world, they will be able to take charge of it.

These and other computer-related initiatives I intend to introduce in the weeks and months ahead will ensure that Ontario remains a world leader in the development and application of educational technology.

COURTHOUSE SECURITY

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will introduce a bill entitled the Police and Sheriffs Statute Law Amendment Act.

The purpose of the bill is to make clear in statutory terms that municipalities, either through their municipal police forces or through a contractual arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police where there are no municipal police forces, have responsibility for providing security in the province’s courthouses.

I want to emphasize that for the vast majority of municipalities these amendments do not represent a change in the current situation, as these municipalities already provide security in the courthouses within their boundaries. Indeed, these amendments simply codify arrangements made by the previous government in March 1985 when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced a $3-per-household increase in the unconditional grants made for policing.

In a statement to the Legislature at that time, the then minister, Dennis Timbrell, who will be remembered by some in the House, indicated that this increase was designed to provide additional assistance in covering the cost of courthouse security as well as the supervision and transfer of prisoners appearing in court. This extra $3-per-household grant, first paid in 1985, translated to payments totalling $8.7 million in the 1986-87 fiscal year.

We believe the existing police agencies in this province are in the best position to judge the level of security required in our courthouses. The province’s responsibility in this area continues to be met through the inclusion of security features in new court facilities and the upgrading of such features in older courthouses.

In the past, some municipalities have benefited from special arrangements they have made with the government to cover costs of courthouse security. When this bill is passed, these arrangements will end. The government believes that all municipalities should be placed on the same footing.

We have discussed the general principle of this bill with the Courts Advisory Committee, composed of the chief justices and chief judges of the courts in the province. They concur with the government’s decision that the security of the users of our courthouses is best ensured by using the trained police officers who serve all the residents of the province.

I have indicated to them that while municipal forces and the Ontario Provincial Police will provide general security for the courthouses, the sheriff and his officers will continue their traditional role of ensuring decorum within the courtrooms.

RESPONSES

Mlle Martel: Au nom du Nouveau Parti démocratique, qu’il me soit permis de souligner le deuxième anniversaire de la Loi 8.

II y a deux ans, l’Assemblée a adopté à l’unanimité la Loi 8. Cette loi avait pour but d’offrir des services gouvernementaux à la population franco-ontarienne dans les régions désignées. Le gouvernement s’est donné trois ans pour mettre en oeuvre les mécanismes nécessaires pour assurer la disponibilité des services.

Il sera important, dans l’avenir, de mieux informer le public sur cette Loi. J’encourage donc le gouvernement à lancer une campagne publicitaire qui expliquerait en détail les différents aspects de la Loi 8.

J’aimerais aussi souhaiter bonne chance au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) en ce qui concerne la tâche qui l’attend.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I would like to respond to the statement today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), en anglais seulement. While this party obviously is pleased to receive news of another community health centre and that the government is going to provide startup operating funding and capital funding for service that will begin next year, we have to point out with regret that the minister is taking tiny steps indeed towards a health system which will have much more reliance on community health centres than it currently does.

All members of the Legislature will know that over the years this party has insisted strongly that community health centres are one of the ways to reduce the pressure on hospital services, pressure that we hear about more and more often every day.

We notice with regret as well that the Ministry of Health continues to aver that community health centres can improve access to health care for target groups at the local level. Of course, our quarrel with the targeting of community health is that we believe community health centres have a far broader application than clearly does the Ministry of Health and we think that in this regard the Ministry of Health is quite wrong. Yes, target groups can benefit from community health centres, but so can all people who are desirous of preventive health services.

I note, as well, that the proposal involves accommodation services to French-speaking patients travelling to Toronto for specialized care. Does this mean the Ministry of Health is finally going to repair the inadequacies of the northern travel grants which have been pointed out to the minister over and over again, particularly by my colleagues from the north?

Clearly, equitable access to health care is important in French as well as in other languages. We do not believe we have achieved a health care system in this province that gives equitable access to people in any language.

Par contre, je ne peux m’empêcher de faire part de quelques souvenirs lorsque mon chef parlementaire a mentionné que le gouvernement voulait célébrer le deuxième anniversaire de cette loi.

It has always been our party’s policy to expand French-language services where numbers warrant. While we are on the subject of anniversaries of significant legislative initiatives, it might be useful to remind the new members of the Liberal Party opposite that Ontario has a long history of progressive, social, sensitive legislation. The first human rights statute in the contemporary era was the Racial Discrimination Act, 1944. This is the 44th anniversary of this initiative by the then Premier George Drew.

In 1951 we passed the Fair Employment Practices Act and the Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act. It is also the 26th anniversary, in 1988, of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the 30th anniversary of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, established by the Honourable Leslie Frost.

COMPUTERS-IN-EDUCATION GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: I would like to respond to the rather incredible statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) regarding computers in education. Today’s announcement is a reconstituted announcement of one he made last year. In fact, it masks over the outrage from boards all across Ontario when the very same Minister of Education cancelled promised funds for computers.

He is well aware of the impact. It put boards all across Ontario in the most awkward position of having to cancel orders. Some they could not cancel; they had penalties to pay. Other boards were forced to buy the equipment. Based on his promise, which he cancelled, they were forced to buy that equipment and pass that expense directly on to taxpayers.

Instead of the minister seeking a headline today, he should be guided by the headlines he has already created for school boards across Ontario. For example: “The Timiskaming School Board Returns Seven Computers,” thanks to his decision; “Cutback in Government Funding Means a Shortage of Computers for Elementary Pupils,” thanks to his government; “Reduction in Grant Means Public Boards Must Pay More for New Computers,” thanks to his government; “RC Trustees Decide to Find the Cash to Keep the Computers” his government promised.

There is an expression in computers that there are bits and bytes; those are the key components of computers. Today the minister has walked into this House with a two-bit announcement and all it does is take a bigger bite out of local property taxpayers in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Labour about the very tragic situation at Libbey Owens Ford in Lindsay where there are, as the minister will recall from question period yesterday and from last week, a number of workers who have been terminated and fired by the company because of their health, and a number of other workers who are involved. We understand that there is a woman working at the plant who has been advised by her own doctor that she is in fact now sensitized to isocyanates. She sees what happens to those individuals who, under the medical surveillance program, are so classified: they are terminated by the company.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what he thinks this woman should do. Should she report her health condition or should she simply keep it to herself?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition refers, I think, in the

preamble to his question, to some six workers who have already received termination notices after being on leave with pay for periods varying from four months to two and a half months. One has to be very sympathetic to the plight of those workers who, I think everyone agrees, ought not to return to an environment where their health will be put at further risk. The issue really is how we are going to ensure that those workers continue to have an income and continue to have resources to put food on the table, pay their mortgages and all of those sorts of things.

What I should tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition is that I have asked the Workers’ Compensation Board to put those cases on a priority basis and have a determination of their claims, because where a worker’s health has been imperilled as a result of a situation in a workplace and that worker can no longer work there, it is imperative that the worker compensation system intervene early and provide appropriate compensation.

Mr. B. Rae: There is no scarier word from the minister to workers than that their case has suddenly become a “priority” with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I hear two very different things from the minister. I hear him saying yesterday to my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the reason these individuals were fired was because there was no place in the entire plant, no spot in the office or anywhere which could be found in which they would be safe, in which they would not be sensitive. There is no place they can work. That is his statement yesterday.

His statement just about five seconds later was that his officials have found that the levels in the plant are okay; there is no problem with the level of isocyanates in the plant.

I find a contradiction between those two statements. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a plant in which the substances are so volatile and so widespread throughout the plant that workers who are sensitized -- and there may in fact be as many as 100 of those workers -- cannot work and at the same time say the levels are safe. There is something wrong with the minister’s law, something wrong with the minister’s legislation --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: -- something wrong with the way the minister is doing business in the province, if he is saying to those workers who are sick, “You can’t go back anywhere in the plant,” and saying to everyone else, “Don’t worry; it’s A-OK.”

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not think I said that at all. I think what I said --

Mr. B. Rae: You did.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to stop hollering for a moment, I think I can clarify what he considers to be inconsistencies and show him that these are not inconsistencies. He knows full well that sensitization to isocyanates can take place over an extended period of time. Back in 1987, ministry officials went into Libbey Owens Ford and put into place a number of orders and control programs to ensure that Libbey Owens Ford was always under the acceptable levels of isocyanates in the workplace. Those orders are now being complied with.

What I said yesterday and what I will tell the Leader of the Opposition today, is that as a result of those control orders being put into place and as a result of further investigation being done by the health and safety support services branch of my ministry and inspectors, and medical surveillance orders being put into place, the atmosphere today is safe. But I should tell him that isocyanate sensitization can happen over a period of time. Even with those orders being complied with, a worker who has been sensitized to isocyanates ought not to return to that environment. Surely the member could understand that.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the minister understands that given a process of beginning to be sensitized to the isocyanates means that even levels lower than the levels normally associated with being safe can affect these workers.

Will the minister not understand that history has a way of repeating itself. We took a hell of a long time to come up with standards that dealt with asbestos workers, and an awful lot of people were sick and died in the meantime. We did the same thing with the miners in the gold mines of northern Ontario, and their widows suffered for many years. We may have the same thing happening now with aluminium dust in a number of our plants in Ontario. We have the same situation with isocyanates. This is why the minister has to move in that plant and has to move now, and he does not do it by allowing a company to fire workers because it has made them sick.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to remind the member for Hamilton East that the regulation of substances of this sort, of isocyanates and other hazardous substances, is now done through the work of a joint labour-management committee. In fact, the members of that committee, working together, have determined jointly what acceptable levels or tolerable levels of isocyanates in the atmosphere ought to be. If he is suggesting to me that I ought to ask that committee to review the determination that has been