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

April 11, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

NATURAL DEATH ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved second reading of Bill 8,

An Act respecting Natural Death.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Sterling: "Freedom is one of our most precious values. As we mature, the freedom to make decisions for ourselves, by ourselves, is a special value. As adults we strive for autonomy.

"But as we age, we become increasingly worried, indeed terrified, that this freedom will be wrenched from us. An accident, a sudden catastrophic illness, or a more insidious progressive dementia may leave us incompetent, unable to make decisions about ourselves.

"These decisions are further complicated by the alternatives available to us. Many of these alternatives were made possible by the recent advances in science and technology.

"Over the past decade, the proportion of elderly has increased throughout the world. This is forecast to increase at an accelerating rate over the next 50 years. At the same time individual autonomy is now given greater and greater value.

"The question, 'What would they have wanted?' is being asked more often by professional care givers, family and friends of the patients robbed by age or disability of the ability to let others know what they want."

The foregoing is a quote from the foreword of a booklet by Dr David William Molloy called Let Me Decide. Letting the individual decide for himself or herself is what Bills 7 and 8 are all about.

As a matter of interest, this is of special interest to us in terms of the process, because I believe this is the first time the Legislature has ever given the opportunity to a private member to have two private member's bills considered at one time. I want to thank each and every member of this Legislature for giving unanimous consent for me to be able to bring both of these bills to the Legislature at this time. These bills are companion bills.

Both of them deal with the furtherance of our individual rights, the right of the individual to make his or her own choices regarding medical treatment should a person become terminally ill or incapacitated. Bringing the two methods of ensuring one's choices are honoured forward at the same time seems most appropriate.

I hope that the co-operation which the members have indicated to me by allowing me to bring both bills forward at the same time is an indication that this legislation will go forward, that it will be viewed as a positive move for all of us and that it will not be considered as a partisan matter.

I think it is important to understand that these bills do not change our laws as to what a person can or cannot do with his or her life. Presently, any person who does not want to receive medical treatment can have such treatment terminated. That is clear in our Ontario law. Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act, only transfers this right to another specific individual when the person receiving the medical treatment can no longer speak for himself. Bill 8,

An Act respecting Natural Death, allows a person to state his wishes in a legal document, often referred to as a living will, so that there will be no doubt about his decision should he no longer be able to express himself.

If Bills 7 and 8 pass second reading and are, I dearly hope, referred to a standing committee of the Legislature, it will provide, for the first time, a public forum in Ontario whereby people will have the opportunity to express their opinion on this issue.

It is vital that any legislation dealing with choices on future medical treatment not be buried in an omnibus health care act, because they are usually only known and considered by health care givers and hospital personnel. This legislation, if passed, would be used by a wide cross-section of the public.

It therefore needs to be out front so that when an individual is at his lawyer's, assigning a power of attorney or making a testamentary will for the distribution of his assets after death, he will also consider giving a durable power of attorney dealing with medical concerns, or he might prepare a living will to state that if an irreversible condition occurs, he wants such treatment terminated under certain circumstances as outlined in his living will. I feel that if this legislation is too far removed from the ongoing business of most Ontarians, it will not be utilized in the manner that is intended.

I have indicated my openness and my willingness to entertain amendments to improve this legislation. For example, I can assure members that if they read Bill 8 and look to the penalty section, it provides a jail sentence for a doctor who does not follow the wishes of a living will. I have heard, because I introduced these bills a year and a half ago, some objections from physicians on this. I am not convinced that we need to threaten doctors with a jail term in order to follow or comply with a living will and would entertain, in committee, an amendment which would delete that penalty.

It has been suggested that these bills should include a provision for regular updating, such as an annual witness signature, to ensure that the designated person who has made the will still wishes that the "living" in fact be in place. I would like to hear argument on that and would accept whatever the committee decides in that regard.

I agree that there are word changes here and there which could improve this legislation and I am most amenable to hearing the public and members of the committee talk about this. This morning, however, I hope that we can get full agreement from this House to pass these bills in principle and then move on to full and open discussion. If we do not, if this initiative gets bogged down in political game playing, as it did, unfortunately, a year ago, or if the door is slammed shut simply because one feels these bills need some specific change, then we lose this window of opportunity to deal with death and dying in a humanitarian way.

Every day we hesitate means some individuals, families and health care givers are suffering needlessly, are wrought with indecision over providing treatment to someone who does not necessarily want that treatment but cannot communicate that wish or opinion. Sometimes members within a family have conflicting feelings on what is to be done when faced with this horrendous decision. I believe that either document, a power of attorney or a living will, would give a great deal of comfort to family members and the attending physician. These documents would provide a clear direction of a dying person's wishes.

In 1983, when I was a member of cabinet and the Provincial Secretary for Justice, I carried an amendment to the Powers of Attorney Act which enabled people to give their power of attorney over to someone else because of mental incompetency, but this only dealt with business assets. Prior to that, if a person lost his mental competency, the power of attorney ended when he lost his competency. That change was as a direct result of consultations with the Alzheimer Society and the recognition of the difficulty faced by people with this disease. However, these past changes only dealt with business assets; they did not deal with the choices of medical treatment.

Bills 7 and 8 will provide the same kind of protection, that the individual's opinions and choices will be honoured, even if you should become incapacitated or incapable of telling somebody those wishes at the appropriate time. They would allow one to die a natural death, with dignity.

I believe most people fear death far less than they fear the loss of control over their existence. They fear a loss of autonomy. This is something which often comes with increasing years, with illness or purely by accident. In any event, individuals should have some control over the quality of their life, particularly if that life is dependent on artificial means. Being able to make these decisions when one is capable to do so will provide comfort and a certain sense of security. I believe Ontarians should be granted the freedom to make their own decisions on their own future health care.

Mr Winninger: I rise in the broad spirit of non-partisanship to support Bills 7 and 8,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act and

An Act respecting Natural Death. I use the words "broad" and "non-partisanship" judiciously, because it was the member for Carleton who spoke against my private member's public bill, Bill 18, before Christmas. Now I am confident that in the fullness of time the member for Carleton will reverse his ill-conceived views, particularly when he can see what kind of assistance that kind of heritage legislation can be to him in his own riding.

Bills 7 and 8 authorize a donor to name a person to consent to medical treatment, or the withdrawal of medical treatment or to have a living will, and with this proposed legislation I believe that the member for Carleton has made a strike for the right of people to control their own lives in the event of incapacity.

The actuaries tell us that four to five times as many people are as likely to become incapacitated as, say, to die prematurely, so these kinds of provisions are crucial to determine what happens to a person when he or she becomes incapable. There is a pressing need for these reforms so that a person can plan sensibly in the case of incapacity.

The living will is an instrument that has already been introduced to other jurisdictions, including the United States, and it is time that we had a similar provision here. Heretofore, a person could name an attorney to deal with his or her property in the case of incapacity, but not to deal with these essential personal care decisions that have to be made. If anything, perhaps this legislation does not go far enough. Certainly it deals with medical decisions; it does not deal with nutrition, hygiene, clothing and safety.

For example, someone may become incapacitated and be given a diet that offends his religious code. This is something that also has to be addressed eventually with appropriate legislation.

The kind of legislation these bills anticipate would avoid the costly, time-consuming and rather cumbersome procedures to declare a committee for a mentally incompetent person under the Mental Incompetency Act. This is something -- a rather cumbersome procedure, as I said -- that unfolds where a person becomes incapable and a person has to be appointed to make decisions on that person's behalf, involving an application to court, involving the production of affidavits from all kinds of medical practitioners and nurses and friends and relatives citing the incapacity of this individual.

This allows a donor to name a power of attorney to make these essential health care decisions in the event of incapacity and thereby avoid a rather onerous procedure under the Mental Incompetency Act. This would allow the donor to direct, for example, the use of life support systems, by making his or her wishes known to friends or relatives. This could also extend to blood transfusions, which would affect Jehovah's Witnesses and others who may be opposed to blood transfusions.

I support the bills with these reservations: There must be adequate means of ensuring that the donor of a power of attorney has capacity at the time that the donation of the power of attorney is made, and it is essential that there be some criteria as to who determines incapacity -- and that is certainly a refinement that might be introduced to this act -- and, further, who scrutinizes the power of attorney to ensure that it is carried forth in an honest, valid and helpful fashion to the person who becomes incapable.

I have one concern, and that involves the exception to Bill 8 for women who are pregnant. I realize that this raises immense ethical considerations, but let's say, for example, that we have a two-week-old foetus, the mother is pregnant, the mother becomes incapable and could be suffering unendurable pain. The withdrawal of those life support systems could not be mandated in a situation like that, simply because of the exception provided for in the member's act.

On the other hand, a foetus that is well advanced and viable outside the womb, through the induction of early birth or perhaps caesarian section, that foetus could survive and yet the mother would not have to endure what might be unimaginable pain. Yet because she is incapable, she cannot make decisions for herself.

I am also concerned that under the provisions of Bill 8 a living will can be revoked, not just in writing, but by the testator, if you will, indicating -- and I take the words from the act -- to someone "orally or by other non-written means" an intention to revoke.

I would suggest that this is open to considerable

interpretation. If someone who is incapacitated and lying on his or her bed of sickness or imminent death makes a gesture towards the attorney or someone else, that could be interpreted as a revocation of the living will which would then enable the health care providers to continue with life support systems. That would certainly be a concern.

Last, I note that "health care provider" is not defined under Bill 8. "Health care provider" is a term, a term of art, I suggest, that is referred to in the bill but not defined, as is the word "physician," for example.

I am also concerned that a health care provider who is unwilling to comply with the living will under the directives of this statute "shall, as promptly as is practicable, take all reasonable steps to transfer the care and treatment of the person to another health care provider who is willing to comply with the living will."

The problem might be, how is a court going to define the words "reasonable" and "practicable"? A physician who is opposed to withdrawing life support systems, who might be indisposed to transfer this patient to another physician who would pull the plug, could conceivably take a week or two to transfer this particular patient. I know there are penalties provided, but it is all very interpretative and I think this is an issue that the member for Carleton should look seriously at.

But all things aside, I support the spirit of these bills.

Mr Daigeler: Let me say first of all that I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on the bills the member for Carleton is bringing forward. The members who are new, and perhaps the people who are watching across Ontario, may not know that we discussed this matter in the last session, and as we had an election since then, bills like this die in Orders and Notices with the election and they have to be reintroduced.

I do think the member for Carleton has raised a very important subject and I think he is to be congratulated for that. I think the issue that he is raising is of profound importance, and as I indicated the last time when I spoke, I do support the basic premise from which the member is coming and I support the intention which the member for Carleton is putting forward.

The religious tradition I am coming from has always supported the idea that you do not have to prolong death by all and every means available, especially in view of our new medical technology. There is that distinction between what is called ordinary and extraordinary means of prolonging death, and in my tradition it is not necessary to use all the extraordinary means to prolong death.

I am quite insistent here -- and in fact that is a reservation I expressed the last time -- on using the term "prolonging death." What is at issue here, and what is being expressed in the title of the bill, we are talking about prolonging death and not really sustaining life. It is very clear, and I am sure that is the member's intention, that in situations where it is definite that death can no longer be prevented and it can only be prolonged through technical and artificial means, in that case the medical technology no longer has to be employed.

But I think, again, what we are talking about here, and I raise that as a reservation and hopefully as a change that may be made in committee or in committee of the whole, we always talk about the natural death will and not the living will, because I think terminology in this matter is extremely important.

We are all aware of some of the events that happened in this century with regard to euthanasia. The member for Carleton has presented us with some background material and, quite frankly, in some of that material that distinction is not clearly made. There is the unfortunate historical precedent that euthanasia in an active sense was used, and is still being used, in fact. Just recently in Austria some nurses were in fact found guilty for using euthanasia, active euthanasia. We have that experience where people use euthanasia to end the life of people against their own will and end it in a way that all of us would agree is immoral and illegal.

I think that is why it is so important to use the proper terms and the proper words and not to speak about life-sustaining but death-prolonging to make very clear that what we are talking about is prolonging by highly artificial means a process that all of us will suffer at one time in our lives or other. I think if the member would consider that in the debate in the committee, I certainly would feel much more comfortable about his bill.

Also, he has, perhaps unwillingly -- I think in

section 7 of the bill he is putting forward, Bill 8, he is referring to the fact that the withdrawal of death-prolonging procedures "shall be deemed not to be a suicide." Again, I think this is rather questionable language. I do not think we should make any connection at all, even in words, with suicide and the intention of withdrawal of artificial death-prolonging procedures. I think it is very clear what the member's intention is, and I think that should be expressed in the words in the bill and should be very carefully made clear to the public.

I am also a bit concerned about introducing too many laws and too many legal provisions in this area. As several members have said before, the practice of these wills is already happening in Canada and in the United States as well and other parts of the world, but I am somewhat uncomfortable about legalizing and introducing even more and more possibilities of litigation in these very, very difficult moments of life.

I think we perhaps should leave a fair degree of discretion to our medical staff and to relatives in the way that is presently being done, that you can in fact put forward such a will and you can indicate what your wishes are, but to put the force of punishment and putting it into a legal definite framework, I have some questions about it.

Also, there is the fear that if somebody does not fill out a will, a natural death will, all others will then be treated and their death prolonged by all means because they have not signed this will. Again, while this is not the intention of the member, I think we should be very clear that all of us should be allowed to determine the treatment that is being given to us, and again, that is a basic principle of medical ethics that we should be allowed to decide the treatment that is being given to ourselves, and that all of us should not be forced through unnaturally prolonging means of keeping away that last moment on this earth that we will all be facing one day.

I think the member for York Centre will be adding some comments later on as well.

Mr Arnott: I would like to at this time rise and indicate my intention to support Bills 7 and 8, introduced by my colleague the member for Carleton, and I would like to congratulate him on these bills. I think the member for Carleton has gone to great lengths, over the past number of years in promoting this idea. It is something I feel very, very strongly about. The living will concept in principle is an excellent idea.

I feel certainly there are moments when senior citizens or anyone can find themselves in a situation where they are unable to make their own determination about what their fate should be, and if they are allowed to transfer that responsibility over to someone they love and trust, that is a great improvement in our society.

As I mentioned earlier and the member for Carleton has alluded to earlier, this is not the first time that this idea has been brought forward in the Legislature. I would like to go back to Hansard of 26 April 1990, when my colleague and friend the member for Markham said in support of these ideas:

"I think the strength of what the member for Carleton has brought forward is it allows each of us to legislate what we want to have done for ourselves. That is a democracy at work. It allows freedom within society where there is a framework where that freedom shows great respect for each human being."

I feel very strongly and agree with those sentiments from the member for Markham.

I feel very strongly that we have to allow individual members of our society as much freedom as possible. In this area, it gives us an opportunity to extend freedom to the people in our society in a way that is so fundamental: towards the end of their life, or at some point to make some determination as to how they want their death to occur, and to allow them a death with dignity. I feel very strongly in that respect.

In my opinion, I do not feel that it is appropriate or reasonable to assume that this intention in any way encourages or legalizes euthanasia. I know that some groups have brought that view forward. I would fundamentally reject that view. I think what it does is just allow for a death with dignity at the end of the road.

I know there is broad-based support across the province for this initiative. There are groups in rural Ontario certainly, called women's institutes, that most members I think will be familiar with. They are most strong in rural Ontario. I have about a dozen of these groups in my riding. They have taken up this cause and assisted the member for Carleton with this endeavour, and they have done an excellent job of promoting it across the population of Ontario, and I would commend them for that.

I would like, on a personal note, to talk about my own family. My grandmother about 10 years ago contracted something called ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is the name of the disease. It is commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. For a family member watching, in my case my grandmother, contract this disease and to see her deteriorate the way it was, it is the most incredible, heartbreaking experience.

It is a debilitating nerve disease. What happens if you contract it is that you lose control of the nerves in your body in different areas. First it was in her tongue and she had difficulty speaking and she had difficulty eating. Then it became in her legs and she had difficulty walking. It graduated to the point where she could only communicate with notes.

The really tragic part of the disease was that her mind was as sharp as it ever was. She was in her mid-70s; her mind was very, very sharp. When I was in university I was able to visit her on the weekends when I came home, and it was incredible. We would talk and communicate, she making notes and me of course talking to her verbally. She would each time remember the most minute details of my last visit. She obviously had a great deal of time to think and reflect about things.

It was just a very difficult time for our family to experience that while she was getting sicker and sicker. We kept her at home as long as possible, and when she finally had to be hospitalized about a month before she died, we were able to consult with the doctors as a family and, in conjunction with my grandmother's own wishes, to withhold heroic medical treatment to prolong her life, prolong her suffering.

I am concerned if a situation like that arises in other circumstances when there is not a family there to make that decision and to assist in that decision. If that is the case, I think it is very important that individual people have the ability to put that down in writing and make their concerns known, while they are of very sound mind as well as body, to make that known so that their wishes can be acted upon.

Again, I would just like to reiterate and congratulate the member for Carleton and the members for London South and Nepean, who have indicated their support. Personally, I was a little disappointed to hear the member for London South question the motives of the member for Carleton for the introduction of this bill. I did not think that was particularly appropriate. I know very well that the member for Carleton is putting forward this measure in a very sincere way to improve social law, I guess we call it, in Ontario.

I would like to conclude my comments by congratulating also the member for Carleton on this historic occasion when he is able to put forward two companion bills, which is I think a historic occasion in this House for private members.

Mr Owens: I would like to begin my remarks by commending the honourable member for introducing this piece of legislation, or I should say reintroducing the legislation. I would like to assure the member that with this piece of legislation there will not be any game-playing and there clearly will not be any doors shut. I plan to support this legislation and I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House will be supporting this legislation.

This bill, Bill 8, is clearly about the right to choose the final moments or the final months of one's life, and it is very important that we as legislators think about that. The discussion of death is never a pleasant subject, but it is one that needs to be dealt with in an honest and forthright manner. We all seem to think that we are going to go on living, until something happens and our time is cut short, or the time of a loved one, and we are faced with decisions that we are often not ready to make. We are often not prepared to have at our hand the wishes of our loved ones or to hand our wishes to other family members if it is us who are involved.

As the previous speaker noted, I too have had some personal experience with this issue. I lost three of my close family members within four years. Part of my job when my younger brother died, if one wants to call it a job, was to sit with him when he was 27 years of age, to talk to him about his death, to make him aware that, contrary to his belief, he was not going to leave the hospital, and to ask him how he wanted his affairs to be settled. It was a very difficult time for him and for myself as the sole surviving family member.

I think the honourable member's legislation will make this process easier for people to deal with at a time when we are not faced with the eventuality, the oncoming event that sometimes hits us square in the face like a two-by-four.

I do not have any profound quotes from philosophers about the right to die and the right to choose one's death as one feels is appropriate. I can say that after the events in my family, I got involved in working with terminally ill patients and doing the kind of support and the kind of counselling that is often so important to people, again, as they face those last moments here on earth. But I can tell members about the hugs I received from the folks I was working with after they had had the opportunity to discuss how they would like to die. More important is where they would like to die.

Not everybody wants to die lying in a hospital bed hooked to a resuscitator, with people pounding on his chest and drugs being infused in all parts of the body. This is not death with dignity. We need to start serving the human need rather than the systemic need that we seem to have served for so long.

The issue of euthanasia that was raised by the member from the opposition is clearly inappropriate. The opponents to this type of legislation raise this issue of euthanasia as a red herring to avoid the issue. Clearly, euthanasia and the right of persons who are compos mentis to decide how, where and when they are going to die are two different issues.

I agree with the honourable member that we should look at a way of updating the living will. There needs to be a period where the patient's wishes may change where people named in the will may or may not be available at the time, so we need to look at a mechanism for change.

I also would agree with the honourable member's suggestion that he accept an amendment to remove the penalty clause for physicians. I think in 1991 physicians are clearly becoming aware of the sociological change in our approach to the way people want to spend their last time and moments here on earth. Again, I would support that amendment.

In closing, I would like to thank the honourable member for his courage in bringing this piece of legislation back to this House, and I would like to applaud the member for giving me the opportunity to speak about what has been a very personal and traumatic experience for me. I am sure all members sitting in this House can relate a tale of a similar nature of how they have had to watch a family member linger in unnecessary pain, and with this legislation that may not have happened.

Mr Sorbara: I just want to begin by commenting and congratulating my friend the member for Scarborough Centre on his remarks on both the bills, Bill 7 and Bill 8, and appropriately, I congratulate the member for Carleton on bringing forward this legislation again. He is a feisty and persistent member. When he gets a project in his portfolio and before this House, he continues to press it with determination.

The last time he had this bill here we ran out of time in Parliament. Actually, we did not run out of time, but we decided Parliament would come to an end. Who made that decision? Can we revisit that? So we are back here again. Probably we would have passed this bill and it may have become law, even though it is rare that private members' bills actually become law.

It seems to me, if I understand the speeches made in the House this morning, that there is little doubt this bill is going to carry through second reading and that my friend from Carleton will then be able to have an opportunity to press his views on this bill through the appropriate committee and then back for third reading.

I want to say to my friend the member for London South and my friend the member for Scarborough Centre that if they really do believe what they say, what they have said this morning in this debate, then I think an obligation falls upon them which goes beyond the speeches they gave in Parliament this morning.

This matter is somewhat procedural, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will bear with me. I want to say one or two things about the substance of the bill.

Having sat in this House for some seven months, they probably know by now that a bill that passes second reading here during private members' hour goes into a kind of limbo. Unfortunately, most of those bills die a natural death. It is interesting that we are talking about that in a bill that is actually called

An Act respecting Natural Death. But there is a way to make this bill a living bill and part of the living law of the land; that is, if the members opposite, the government members, decide they really want it to happen, not just make it an opportunity this morning to make speeches about the importance of respecting the wishes of someone who is terminally ill or someone who wants to be able to die a natural death and not have the intervention of life support systems or the intervention of things that are against a religion or against a certain style of life.

They can do something more than give the speeches. They can prevail upon their caucus colleagues who sit in cabinet to ensure that the bill not only goes through the committee process -- it has the refinements my friend the member for Carleton was suggesting -- but also comes back to this place for third reading. That is when we really test the mettle of the government members and what they say they believe in. I think that should happen with this bill.

I do not think it is as easy as the sponsor of the bill, the member for Carleton, has suggested. I do not think it is as simple as has been suggested by some of the government members. When this bill does become part of the living law of the land, I think significant controversies will arise. After all, we are not changing the Hippocratic oath that governs the ethics of every physician and indeed every health care professional in the province. Their mandate is to intervene, in a sense, at all costs, to ensure that life is maintained.

There is no doubt that in the personal experience of all of us, whether with family members, with friends or acquaintances or in conjunction with our responsibility as politicians, every one of us has seen instances where the real desire of the individual was to let life slip away, not in some morbid sense, but because real life was no longer there. Life was being maintained through mechanical devices or chemical devices, but the real wish of the individual was to let the end arrive naturally. That is what this bill is all about.

Although I strongly believe that 99% of the work of this Parliament ought to be devoted to the rigorous support of life in our province, there is room for this addendum to that law, to acknowledge that our technical capacity to maintain life sometimes, in a few rare instances, will exceed the desire of the individual to have his or her life mechanically sustained.

Indeed, my colleague the member for Scarborough North, sitting right here beside me, refers to an instance in his own family where those hard choices had to be made and life support systems removed. It is not as easy as we think, as we talk about this bill. The decisions are terribly painful. Anyone who has had to make that sort of decision, participate in that decision or then watch life slip away after the systems have been unplugged, have been removed, knows the extent to which that is a difficult and heart-rending process to go through and to watch.

I want to add my congratulations to those we have heard from other members, to the member for Carleton for bringing forward this measure. Again, I have no doubt this Parliament is going to last long enough to deal with this bill through all of its phases, committee and then third reading. I want to reiterate once again, to the few government members who are sitting here this morning for second reading of this bill, that this bill is in their hands when this debate is over. We encourage them to make sure we see it again in this Parliament.

Mr Carr: I wanted to rise to offer my support to the bill and thank my colleague for bringing it forward. I think the previous speaker said it very well. He is very tenacious and hardworking and we appreciate that. Sometimes in this House that is what you need to do, and I compliment him for that.

I also just wanted to take a quick minute to thank some of the members who have shared very personal and private situations with the House. It must have been very difficult to do that, but it does help add to the debate. I want to thank the members who have done that and shared that with us.

I also wanted to just talk a little bit about the last debate that went on and read a little of the copy from the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who is now of course the Minister of the Environment. Her statement on that day was: "I believe we will find, when we discuss it more broadly, that there is a broad general support for it and that the government will not drag its feet, will not try to reinvent the wheel by coming up with legislation that it can claim to be its rather than something that was introduced by an opposition member, but will move forward and proceed through the process of bringing" this bill, meaning that bill of the day. "As I say, I am very proud to support it."

I would hope some people on the government side reflect upon it, that we not leave the debate here and leave all the good ideas on the floor and that people will try to the best of their ability. I think the new members opposite will attempt to do that. We were all elected to try to improve the situation in this province, and I would encourage those people on the government side to push by whatever means are necessary to get this legislation through. There has been a lot of work done on it, there is broad support for it and I would encourage everyone to attempt to push this through so we can make some meaningful changes to the process in this province. Those are my comments.

Mr Silipo: In the few seconds I have left, I want to just simply express my support for these two bills for a couple of very fundamental principles which are, after all, what the second reading debate is all about, supporting things in principle. The principles that are in the two bills are the right of the individual to have control over his or her life and affairs, and to make decisions at a time other than a time of crisis, which I think is significant in both of these. Certainly there are improvements we can make in the committee process, but I would support it at this time.

The other is on the principle that I think a couple of people mentioned, which is that of support for private members' initiatives, of which I am a very strong supporter. I will certainly continue to do everything possible to make sure that the roles of private members and those initiatives get heightened, particularly when they deal with issues such as this. I regret that the previous government did not take some of those actions to support and expand those provisions, and I hope this government can do that.

Mr Winninger: Mr Chairman, on a point of personal privilege: In reference to remarks made earlier by the member for Wellington that I had questioned the motives of the member for Carleton, I would like to make it quite clear that at no time did I question the motives of the member for Carleton in bringing forward this bill, and that the member for Wellington was as wrong about my questioning the member's motives as he was about my riding.

Mr Jordan: It is my privilege also to speak in support of the bill and in support of my colleague the member for Carleton. I know him to be sincere in the presentation of this bill. I am not going to speak at length, but just to bring to the attention of the House the things that come to the fore, in my opinion, relative to this bill.

I think we are all aware of the changes in medical treatment, the new equipment that is available and the desire by the medical profession and others to try to use that equipment to the best advantage, and I believe sometimes -- I know my own personal experience has been, as many others have stated, the prolonging of life to the point that it becomes a mechanical life rather than a human life.

I think it is important that we have at our disposal this type of legislation that would make a decision on ending those mechanical-type lives, or other types of prolonging the different kinds of diseases we are facing today, such as cancer and so on, where you are actually given the option that if you want treatment you can have three months of life, and if you do not take it you probably have a month.

These are the types of things families are dealing with today and I think the member for Carleton's bill will allow these discussions to take place beforehand and in an organized manner.

Mr Sterling: If I could use the time remaining to my caucus, four minutes-plus, and the two minutes together I would appreciate it. I would like to thank each and every member. It is amazing that when we are discussing something which is really an issue which has probably affected everyone's life in the Legislature, we can have eight speakers express in a very succinct amount of time their support for what I consider very important pieces of legislation.

I was very touched by the member for Wellington and the member for Scarborough Centre in relaying their personal cases to the Legislature. I saw many members nod in agreement with them and thinking probably, as I was at that time, back to a personal experience which I have experienced.

I was very much interested in the member for London South's remarks when he talked about the various issues raised by the various sections in the bill. To be quite truthful and blunt, I am not certain of all of the decisions I made when I put those provisions in the bill, but I put them there so we would have a long and a fruitful discussion when and if we -- and I believe we will -- get to a standing committee. I would like to hear those arguments. I want to hear what the real feelings of members of this Legislature are on each and every

section of this bill. I will no doubt have my opinion. I went down the list of choices and made my choices at that time.

As each and every member of this Legislature knows, when they draft a private member's bill they do so in some isolation from other members. Therefore, if and when we get to the stage of amending this bill, I look forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to hear what people from the outside want to deal with, their general overall feeling, and what the general consensus of 12 or 13 members of this Legislature would be on each and every issue which the member for London South in particular raised here.

Quite frankly, when this bill gets out to a committee, I think it will probably be one of the most exciting experiences for members of a committee of this Legislature to have in committee because they will have the real opportunity of having their input and say into a law. When we vote on the various different sections, I hope we will not vote along party lines. In other words, my party normally has two members on that committee. I would not expect them to vote in concert on each and every amendment or each and every section.

I would hope each and every member will bring their combined wisdom to the bill, so that when we work the bills through the committee level, we will have a consensus of all 13 members, regardless of what political stripe they might or might not wear.

I point out to the member for Nepean, who expressed some concern about having too much legislation dealing with this matter, that the reason I bring the matter to the fore is so there will not be confusion in the public's mind as to what is or is not valid as a living will, or what is or is not valid as a durable power of attorney. I use the legislation to bring forward issues which are in the public's mind or which would be in the physician's or the health care giver's mind who is faced with that decision. I want those all out in the open so that we can draw the proper conclusions in dealing with these very important documents.

I also would hope that when the committee comes down to the final document, we will try to keep it as simple as is possible. We will have to make some decisions which will perhaps not be perfect, but that is the way all legislation is. But it is very important in my view that whatever we do come out with, the public is able to understand what our intent is and what the rules might be surrounding these two particular documents.

I would also like to thank the member for Dovercourt for his succinct and very pointed remarks on the bill. I think he makes two very valid points, and I congratulate him on how quickly he can do that. I would also like to thank both the member for Oakville South and the member for Lanark-Renfrew for their participation in the debate as well.

Last, I would like to thank five individuals with Dying with Dignity of Canada who are sitting in the members' gallery. These people have been travelling across this country and telling the story of these two bills along with their full efforts to allow people the right to die with dignity. I would like to recognize Don Elliott, who is the president of Dying with Dignity of Canada, Isabel Dunning, Irene Birch, Jean Skelhorne and Marilynne Seguin, who is the executive director of this very important association. There are thousands and thousands of people behind you. The members can assure you of that.

WETLAND PROTECTION

Mr Wiseman moved resolution 10:

That, in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on resources development should be asked to review the current effectiveness of governmental efforts to protect wetlands in southern Ontario and in particular study the following matters:

1. The circumstances and the frequency of wetland loss, with special emphasis on the pressures created by urban development on such wetlands and watersheds as those found in the Altona Forest, Frenchman's Bay, Carruthers Creek, and others that are experiencing similar impacts;

2. The adequacy of governmental laws, policies and programs for ensuring that there is no net loss of this valuable resource;

3. Whether there is a need for a comprehensive wetland protection statute in Ontario;

4. The need for education programs on the value of wetlands;

5. The desirability of establishing a provincial office for wetland protection in order to centrally administer, monitor and enforce all governmental laws, policies and programs;

6. Ways to promote the creation of new wetlands;

7. Ways to resolve conflicts arising from farm activities that impact upon wetland viability; and

8. Any other matter the committee considers relevant to wetland preservation.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to just take some time and review a little bit of the history of this topic in the House. In May 1986, Mr Knight, who was then a member, I think from Burlington or southern Ontario, also moved a resolution that was asking for wetland protection and looking for the government to move on wetland legislation. I think perhaps that was brought forward in a climate that was not quite as aware of environmental issues as we are today.

Since that time, we have had a number of reports that have been written. We have had the Brundtland report, we have had the first stage of the Crombie commission come out, we have had the second stage of Watersheds come out, an awful lot of work done by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and other environmental groups who are interested in protecting wetlands. We have recently a study on preserving the Great Lakes wetland and environmental agenda, which I will talk to, if I have time, at some length. We have had back in 1986 an evaluation of wetlands. We have had in 1980 a study done by Michele H.

Lemay, a thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of master of arts on regional planning and resource development that talks about the history of wetlands and their erosion in southern Ontario. We have had a large compendium of research put together and we have had many publications by naturalists and other organizations on wetlands. So I think we are well into understanding what wetlands are and how wetlands develop. But I would like to take just a moment to define what a wetland is.

Basically a wetland is an area of land that is covered with water for all or part of the year. They occur, as their name implies, at the intersection of land and water as small inland marshes along lakes or streams or as part of the vast northern peat lands. Wetlands are characterized by hydrophilic soils and specific types of flora and fauna especially adapted for wet conditions. In general, four types of wetlands are found in southern Ontario: marshes, swamps, bogs and fens. In this document there is a good definition of each of those. I do not have time to relay the definition of each, but for the members who are interested, this information is available.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to look at the positive aspects of wetlands and why they are important. Much has been written about wetlands. In the past, people have seen wetlands as an area that should be drained and developed. In my own riding, for example, Carruthers Creek has been seen as an area that should be dredged out and turned into a marina, with surrounding lands turned into marina complexes, hotels and condominiums. What we lose if we do this kind of development is what the Brundtland report called sustainability. There are positive aspects of a wetland, and I would like to turn to those for a moment.

They support diverse species of waterfowl. Wetlands have ducks; in my riding, for example, we have ducks, we have swans, we have geese and all sorts of different types of birds. I am not going to pretend for one second to be as conversant with the bird population in my riding as some of my friends are in the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Pickering naturalists, but there are large numbers of various types of birds that live in these areas.

Wetlands also protect water resources. I have been told that a wetland will filter water, will make it purer than it was when it started out, and that it cleanses, it takes out heavy metals, and it will actually act as a filter and a filtering agent for the lakes and for the streams.

They support coastal estuaries, fishery resources. For example, they are the source of spawning. Many various types of fish are spawned in these waters and then move from there into the deep lake where they then are part of the resource base. I will turn to that in a moment.

They protect shorelines from erosion and wave actions. They are nursery areas for young shellfish and crustaceans. They function as a solar-powered water purification system, as I described. They can modify acid precipitation and sulphur, heavy metal impacts on aquatic ecosystems, and they can act to trap pesticide residue.

Equally, they form a wonderful opportunity for young people to become more in touch with nature. On more than one occasion, I know from the school where I used to teach, we on a regular basis took the students to canoe in the marshes and the wetlands and to get up close. There is nothing more pleasurable than to trudge along the shoreline of a wetland and look at the flora and fauna and the birds, and there is nothing more exciting for young children to see than fish migrating up the streams to spawn. I think we need to continue to protect that aspect of our heritage.

I would like to speak for a moment of economic reasons why we should protect our wetlands. Wasaga Beach, for example, has a commercial tax base of $20.86 million. We need to protect these beaches with wetlands as well. For example, Long Point and Point Pelee marshes in Ontario are priceless natural reserves, but they also generate $5 million a year in tourist revenue. In Ontario, estimates are that wetlands-related tourist activities account for $853 million annually, plus another $11 million for licences and fees.

All in all, Canadians spend upwards of the astonishing figure of $4.2 billion annually on wildlife-related activities, many of which are connected with wetlands, so important as a habitat. These figures are from a recent Environment Canada survey.

In Ontario, crops of fur, wood and wild rice have been valued at $300,000 annually. In 1980, muskrat harvest in Manitoba fetched $2 million; marsh-hunting in BC, $43 million; in Alberta, $38 million.

Another study revealed that an acre of wetland was worth the following: $1,054 for sport fishing, $1,040 for fish production and $720 for waterfowl breeding and feeding. Adding the utility values produced a total of $4,700 an acre. So members can see there is a good economic reason to support the protection of wetlands.

Unfortunately, there are many impacts on wetlands that are eroding and causing the amount of wetlands to be reduced. Agricultural development is one of these. I think we need to investigate the possibility of rewarding farmers for keeping wetlands as wetlands, instead of putting restrictions or putting roadblocks in the way of farmers being able to do that.

Sewage treatment plants -- in my riding and in southern Scarborough, we have lost wetlands to the construction of sewage treatment plants.

Cottages and resorts, warehouse and docking facilities, dredging and filling for harbour expansion -- in fact, 85% of total marsh acreage loss in the early years, prior to 1931 was due to urbanization.

Parking lots are particularly hard on wetlands, because they speed up the runoff of water into the river valleys and then there is an unnatural gush of water through the wetlands that creates a huge problem for spawning fish and for the waterfowl, and then at the other end of the year, when there is no rain, the rivers dry up and there is not this continuous influx of water. So we have a problem where we have to consider the impacts of urbanization on wetlands.

Drainage of storm waters, as I have just said, is a large issue.

I am running a little short of time, but I think that what we need to do is to move forward with this resolution so that the standing committee on resources development can investigate all of the issues, all of the documentation that is present, and come up with a comprehensive legislation and a bill which can be introduced to the House for all members to peruse. I think we should do this as quickly as we possibly can and move forward in an expeditious manner. I think a lot of the work has been done, so I would like to see some rapid movement.

Mr Ramsay: I would like to applaud and support the member for Durham West's resolution this morning. I want to tell him that I support that. I have a couple of provisos I would like to speak to this morning, but I really support his interest in this topic, a topic that is extremely important to the ecosystem of this province and to this continent.

I appreciate his beginning remarks. He started to define what a wetland is, and I want to talk a little bit to that. I want to talk in a little more detail later on about the implications of wetland with regard to the agricultural industry. As you know, Mr Speaker, the agricultural industry has been a direct threat to the survival of wetlands, and I think it is very important that we think anew with regard to wetlands and agricultural application. I would like to touch upon that a bit.

I think it is important that we get on with this. I appreciate the member's listing all the reports and all the studies that have occurred over the years, and I must say -- and I hope he is in contact with the Minister of Natural Resources -- that there is a wetlands policy sitting there ready to go. The previous government had worked on this. The draft report has been released and further consultation has taken place with a number of groups across the province. In fact, approximately 250 submissions have been received back from the government, from such groups as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the anglers and hunters of Ontario, the AMO and other individual conservation groups.

I must say that the release of the approved final policy statement was expected this fall. I really cannot understand why we have not seen this yet, and I certainly do not want to put any roadblocks in the member's way of having our committee -- a committee of which I am a member as the Liberal caucus Natural Resources critic -- because I think it is important that we look at this.

But I just do not want to see this additional look-see, if you will, of all the data that are already out there put any roadblocks in the progress of getting the government, getting this Legislative Assembly moving forward on adopting an Ontario wetlands policy. I think that is very important and we have got to be working together here in the goodwill that I know is possible in this House.

Why do I say that time is of the essence here? I would just like to give a couple of examples of what has happened in the last few months in southern Ontario with regard to wetlands. We have had golf courses established on class 1 and 2 wetlands. We still are having residential subdivisions within class 1 and 2 wetlands; retail and commercial facilities within a class 2 wetland recently; a landfill and waste incinerator within a class 2 wetland; and of course, roads and bridges and infrastructure of all sorts across this province are still being built on class 1 and 2 wetlands.

I think the member would agree that this has to stop. We have to have a new appreciation of the value of wetlands. So I would like to talk to that a bit.

Before I go on to that I would like to say to the member that in his resolution he really has not referred to our greatest wetland resource. That, of course, takes place, as the member for Cochrane North will know, mostly in his riding, in northern Ontario, because the James Bay wetlands are the largest wetland reserve in the world.

While I am on that, I would like to talk about what a wetland is in maybe just a little more detail for the people who are watching at home, because our sense in the past has always been that if the land were wet, what we had to do was drain it, that somehow wetland was a waste of a resource, that it was useless and therefore, in order for personkind to prosper, we had to drain a wetland. Of course, we understand now the valuable resource that it is.

But what is a wetland? And I guess the question is, why is it wet? It is wet because it is a reservoir. What nature has developed is a reservoir system for fresh water on our planet. It is a tremendous reservoir that holds water in times of tremendous rain accumulation, but also in time of drought. What it is basically is a sponge. The reservoir is a sponge that holds that fresh water resource, and we in Ontario happen to be blessed with the largest wetland in the world. From that a lot of prosperity has flowed, because we have this fresh water resource in our province.

Also, and I think more important today, is the way we have been treating our environment. The wetlands are also a filter and what we receive from the wetlands with regard to fresh water is clean fresh water. It filters out the impurities, and I think that certainly has to be addressed. Of course, the member had mentioned the other important aspect of wetlands. It basically is that wetlands are the home of a total ecosystem which it is very important for us to be preserving.

I would like to mention one aspect that I would hope the member would bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is something I have been working on, and that is with regard to the Drainage Act. The Drainage Act was one of the first acts that was established in this House. It was established in the 1800s and it was a very good act for its day. It was

an act that really opened up the farm land in southwestern Ontario, and primarily it was designed for southwestern Ontario.

That act is out of date. The Drainage Act needs to be brought up to date, with the awareness that we have today for the environment. We have to be looking at its application. What we have seen with the Drainage Act is, yes, some farm land that is a bit wet being drained and added to the tremendous productivity of Ontario's agriculture. But we have also seen in that application some tremendous disasters. We have seen some tremendous erosion disasters caused by Drainage Act construction and maintenance. We have also seen wetlands and woodlots being drained by main drains going by these tremendous resources.

We have to make sure that we have an environmental assessment process established, tagged on somehow to the Drainage Act. That is something that has to happen.

In the other regard, we may have to make sure that we have cost-benefit studies mandatory on every drain petition that is brought before every municipal council under the Drainage Act. That is extremely important, because we have had horrendous projects that have done tremendous environmental damage and have also been costing the people involved along that drainage land, causing a tremendous financial impact.

There is much to do and I would encourage the member to push his government, as we are over here in the Liberal caucus, to move on the implications of the implementation of wetlands policy for this province. He will get a lot of support in this House from all parties if he does that, and we welcome the discussion that will accrue, from this resolution today, in the standing committee on resources development of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr McLean: I am pleased today to have the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution. It would have been nice to have had the Minister of Natural Resources here to listen to the comments and to participate in this bill.

Wetlands are areas that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. The presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric, or waterlogged, soils and has resulted in the development of hydrophytic, or water-tolerant, vegetation.

The four major categories of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. The province of Ontario accounts for approximately 23% of Canada's remaining wetlands, the most of any province or territory. Seventy-five per cent of Ontario's original wetlands south of the Precambrian Shield have disappeared. In parts of southwestern Ontario, over 90% of the original wetlands have been lost. Conversion to agricultural land is said to account for an estimated 85% of recent losses. Cottage and urban development have also contributed to wetland destruction.

At one time, wetlands were considered to be of little value and were frequently drained to create fertile agricultural land, but it is now recognized that wetlands are a critical component of the natural environment and drainage has become unacceptable.

As my party's critic for Natural Resources, I am well aware of the importance of this province's wetlands. They are vital to Ontario's economy. Wetlands maintain and improve water quality, help control flooding, provide habitat for fish and wildlife and contribute substantial social and economic benefits. These benefits include outdoor recreation and tourism advantages from such activities as hunting, fishing and birdwatching, amounting to over 53 million user-days per year for more than seven million residents.

Wetlands were described by early settlers as impenetrable, mosquito-infested, God-forsaken swamps. The notion that wetlands were a nuisance persisted until only a few years ago, when the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario pointed out that they could provide a number of important benefits that can be grouped into three categories: ecological, social and economic. Until that time, Ontario's wetlands had been considered on the basis of their value for such uses as agricultural, commercial, industrial or residential development and little consideration had been given to their value when left in a natural state.

In January 1989 the Liberal government released its draft policy statement on wetlands planning in Ontario. The draft policy was circulated for public review and comment, and analysis of the draft policy indicated that it was completely inadequate in responding to the need to protect Ontario's wetlands. The policy statement and the implementation guidelines were too vague to be meaningful and would do little to save Ontario's remaining wetlands.

I would like to spend a little time to outline some of the concerns I had about the Liberal draft policy statement on wetlands planning in Ontario. I think it is important to do so when we are here today to consider this related resolution. The policy merely protected class 1 and class 2 wetlands which are provincially significant. According to experts, only 40% of this province's wetlands fall into these categories. That means that under the Liberal policy, 60% of the remaining wetlands would be sacrificed. This would include regionally and locally significant wetlands that may be vital habitats for rare plant and animal species.

The Liberal proposal was not binding on municipalities. It provided guidance and suggestions to municipalities on how to deal with wetlands. It is possible that some municipalities would ignore the province's directives, either because of development pressures or because of a lack of expertise in wetland planning.

The Liberal policy stated that northern Ontario wetlands would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As there is no formal evaluation system in place, this could lead to arbitrary decision-making, further jeopardizing northern wetlands, and I think we have already seen one example too many of arbitrary decision-making from the Minister of Natural Resources. I am referring to his recent arbitrary decision to allow unrestricted native hunting and fishing in Algonquin Provincial Park.

Finally, the Liberal draft policy enshrined the concept of compatible development, which would allow development on or adjoining wetlands so long as the wetland was maintained or enhanced. To determine if the wetland has been maintained or enhanced, the wetland evaluation system would be used for southern Ontario wetlands and this evaluation system would not adequately take into account the hydrological value of a particular wetland, and as a result, very important wetlands would be lost. I think members will agree that far from being a step forward in the preservation of Ontario's vulnerable wetlands, the Liberal wetland draft policy was really just a step sideways.

While we are debating this resolution today, I think we should all be asking ourselves the following questions: Should wetlands be protected by the province? If so, should wetland protection be enshrined in legislation, rather than a non-binding policy statement as proposed by the former Liberal government? Should a non-development approach be adopted in relation to all wetlands, or just to those which are evaluated as provincially significant? Should the wetland policy be extended to cover at least class 1, 2 and 3 wetlands to be consistent with the conservation land tax reduction program?

Are there some wetlands that could be considered dispensable? Should Ontario move to implement an evaluation system for northern wetlands? Should the evaluation system be upgraded so that the hydrological value of a wetland is as important as its value in terms of flora and fauna? If so, should the province commit funds to the development of technology which will allow for the evaluation of wetlands on hydrological grounds? These are many questions that need to be answered.

I want to relate a letter I got from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and it has to do with land tax rebates on conservation land. "Under the previous administration we had a 100% tax rebate on land such as the Minesing Swamp. The indication that I am getting now is that this government is wanting to change that, to be reduced to a 75% land tax rebate."

I think that is unacceptable. I think that when we are looking at a policy on wetlands that allows people to make sure that it is under the conservation program, that 100% taxation rebate should still be there. I do not believe it should be reduced, as the minister and the government at this time are proposing to reduce it. so I congratulate the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for bringing it to my attention so that I can relate this to the minister and express the feelings here when we are dealing with this very important issue, wetlands in Ontario.

Mr Waters: I am going to be quite brief on this. I would just like to make the point that I would even like to see the legislation go somewhat farther than is being asked for here. As a member of the standing committee on resources development, we have been talking to some extent about purple loosestrife and the type of invasion that is going on in our wetlands by this type of thing that we as a society have introduced, with no regard or forethought to our wetlands.

I think that we should in some way include this type of thing in legislation and work towards the eradication of this, as well as stopping the urban sprawl and the encroachment by farming on wetlands. They are very important to us, and if we do not do something in the near future, we will be losing more valuable acreage of wetlands.

Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to join in this debate and to recognize the initiative of the member for Durham West in bringing the issue of wetlands preservation policy before the House. I am going to be supporting this resolution because I think it affords members an opportunity to explore that part of our heritage and that part of our future which is embodied in a policy or approach to wetlands preservation. The more that people know about these issues, members of this House included, the more they will be taken into account, not only in our private lives but in public policy as well. For those reasons, I think this is a useful resolution.

But I will tell members frankly that if this resolution passes this morning, and it appears that it will, and the resources committee has an opportunity to review these issues in some detail, members of that committee will expand the mandate which the member for Durham West has included in this resolution. There are three specific areas where I see expansion to be of some value.

One would be to explore choices affecting wetlands preservation in northern Ontario and not limit the committee's review to a southern Ontario scope.

Second would be -- and I think the member for Durham West has to a certain extent addressed this, I think in

section 2, the inventory

section -- to incorporate a practical and pragmatic approach to the examination of the competing influences which bear on the development and maintenance of wetlands policy, whether that competition comes from power generation requirements, pressure of urbanization, landfill sites, agricultural practices or other areas which have been mentioned by other speakers. I think that we have to look not only at where competition exists, but where that competing activity can be taken out of the contest and where it in fact can be made complementary to preserved wetlands in an area.

Third, I think that the discussion in committee ought to take place within the context of a final wetlands policy document from the Minister of Natural Resources, around which there would be a framework for the examination of public policy actions.

In preparing notes for this debate, I went back to my files and I reviewed the original draft wetlands policy statement and implementation guidelines which were issued under the Planning Act by Vince Kerrio, then Minister of Natural Resources, and John Eakins, then Minister of Municipal Affairs. That document was released in January 1989. Those documents were sent out for public review and over a period of time received widespread comment from some 250 individuals and groups.

The member for Simcoe East has indicated that the response in fact demanded stronger action than was proposed in those documents and suggested that the proposals, from a public point of view, did not go far enough. But there certainly was an expectation that there would have been a final wetlands policy issued in the autumn of 1990. Those members who have an interest in these things may remember that I asked the Minister of Natural Resources a couple of weeks ago through a member's statement when we could expect to see a statement and some progress made on legislation.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association have requested that statement by the end of this month and in fact that legislation would be enacted after discussion and input from those groups by 1992. I think that it is vital to have that kind of statement of direction from the minister so that all members can place the discussion within a context and then move from there.

section 1 of his resolution, the member has called for an inventory of the circumstances and frequency of wetland loss, and of the particular influence of urban encroachment, with reference to specific sites. There is considerable evidence that in days past most of the area which includes that which he represents, through Metropolitan Toronto, through the area, that I represent in Halton, down to the area represented by the member for St Catharines and into the Niagara Peninsula and further on up into the Greys and Bruces, was all bog, fen or marsh.

There have been special preservation efforts that we know about, and I think particularly of areas such as the Luther Marsh or Beverley Harbour, Jordan Station, the Hillman Marsh and so on -- Beaverdale Fen may be another one -- which have recognized the value of those wetlands, and the special ecological influences of the area have been maintained, sometimes by accident but frequently by design. I suppose what we are all looking for is a context and a definition of the design. That is why we need a document from the minister.

I want to speak to

section 2 of the member for Durham West's resolution. I believe that he is correct: There should be no loss of wetland function and no net loss of acreage in Ontario. There is little doubt that an examination of the adequacy of government laws and policies and programs for ensuring protection would be useful. However, it seems to me to be obvious that the priority that is being placed on this issue in the public sector in fact is behind the demands that are being made from the public. I think the current minister ought to see those demands for what they are and bring forward the strategy so that we can get on with the job.

I think as well, as we review the question of no net loss, that what we have to review are the competing factors surrounding those issues: How do you deal with the need to protect food and raise livestock without infringing on wetland areas? How can those be made complementary? How do you preserve wetlands while still providing for the housing needs of an expanding urban population? How do you determine which wetlands have specific priority? Many have been designated as matters of international and national interest. Certainly provincial interest in many areas has been defined, and areas of local interest.

There is a hierarchy for areas. How do we continue to ensure that the hierarchy is established and maintained at all levels, no matter what the interest, whether it is international or local?

I think the other question we should be looking at is what lengths we should go to to restore wetlands or to recreate a natural habitat for endangered species. I am concerned about whether our priority should in fact be to concentrate on protecting what we have rather than perhaps moving the other way. I think that would be a very useful contribution to the debate.

I would also like to suggest that the committee could look at how we bring areas of jurisdictional interests together so that there is a melding of interests, whether it be the Ministry of Natural Resources, conservation authorities or whatever other body deals with these issues. We need a comprehensive wetland strategy. I compliment the member on his work.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to spend a few minutes to participate in this debate.

I am, to some degree, disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not here this morning, because I think this bill, both directly and indirectly, will adversely affect many farming operations.

I can cite examples that we have nuisance beaver across the province of Ontario. This bill intends and purports to promote the creation of new wetlands. To the member whose private bill we are discussing this morning, we have beavers, that are doing exactly that. They are not only flooding farm land; they are flooding some very good land on which trees are growing. If you allow that to occur for any length of time and you have already killed the trees that are on there, you have created wetlands. There is no doubt about it.

The beavers, as I know them -- and I speak from firsthand experience because we have to destroy dams on an annual basis -- do know where to put them where they are the most effective of all.

The other area of great concern is the desirability of establishing a provincial office for wetlands protection. In other words, we would have bog or swamp cops. I think the Ministry of Natural Resources, indeed, could improve some of the ways it operates to be more effective without creating an additional bureaucracy, and also in so doing, I am sure, could slow down the process whenever we have flooding coming from nuisance beavers, that farmers would probably have to go through this swamp or bog police office.

If indeed it takes as much time as some of the other ministries do to make a decision and then to put it into action, I can tell you that farmers would be lacking income tremendously.

I want to quote, from the most recent edition of Farm and Country, one of the headline stories, "Protected Wildlife Attacks Farm Income," and it speaks of George Lunan, who resides along the St Lawrence River between Glen Walter and Summerstown in Glengarry county, where he says he loses from between $5,000 and $10,000 a year to deer doing damage, particularly to his dwarf apple trees.

We have in Bruce county a man called Ken Kelly, who says the balance of wildlife has been upset by Ministry of Natural Resources policies. This man farms at Paisley, and he says that trapping restrictions have led to an overabundance of coyotes in Bruce county, drastically reducing the yearling deer population. They, of course, feed on that. Mr Kelly is not very kind when he says, "The swamp lovers and tree huggers are prevailing over common sense and reason," and that tends to have some degree of truth. I would be very, very nervous to implement the bill as it is presented this morning.

Of course we know that wetlands are most important. They recharge the hydrological system in certain areas, and in certain areas it is an outlet for the surplus underground water and it acts as a filter and it is very much essential to life. However, common sense must prevail, and once we set in bureaucracies that are almighty, it tends to have the minorities taken for granted, and I speak of those people in rural Ontario who try and earn a living at agriculture, which is not easy in this day and age.

The

article goes on to state: "The problem here is that no one seems to know the rules. Farmers are allowed to destroy beaver dams but they are not allowed to destroy the beavers." You hire a backhoe if you are able to get to the dam, and if you are not then you have got to get somebody to dynamite it, but it will be back up in the next day or two. That creates a major problem out in rural Ontario.

"Predators are not the only source of trouble," says Alfred Vogel, a corn farmer in Glengarry county. "The beaver dams are blocking municipal drains, they are killing off a lot of our good timber stands and indeed creating havoc."

I think the member brings this private member's bill to the House with all sorts of good intentions; however, I think it has to be looked at very, very closely. AMO, for example, has a report here asking for more local municipal autonomy. The ivory towers are running things and they do not always bring common sense to the situation.

I have a number of other editorial comments. They basically speak of a commonsense approach by the Ministry of the Environment, by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and of course the affected ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the 2.5% producers across the province of Ontario will be bearing the brunt of such things as this private member's bill should it go through. There is an environmental bill of rights on the horizon that will again create all sorts of problems for our people in rural Ontario trying to earn a living and who feed this province very well.

Mr White: I rise to speak in favour of the resolution put forth by my colleague the member for Durham West. In areas such as ours, where the pressures of development are strong and we are in danger of losing any separation between our urban and natural areas -- presently in my riding there are two beautiful wetland areas, quite large ones, which border Lake Ontario. These marshes are constantly threatened, as they are fragile environments. Ironically, these fertile, supportive environments with abundant flora and fauna could easily be devastated simply because of their proximity to our communities.

Separation means that they be protected from that devastation. Separation of these few remaining natural environments means that they can be appreciated, that our children will have a natural legacy that will be accessible and intact. My children and I have often walked along the shores of these marshes. We have often enjoyed the rich variety of plants and of birds and seen many other naturalists there, including Dr Suzuki. My older two explore on their own, while the youngest is often in delight at the minutiae of natural life.

I am constantly amazed at the quiet respect that they accord and at the awe that they show the natural world. They are splendid times, but not just for children. We adults also regain a sense of agape that only this natural communion can bring. As my wife would say, nature can sustain and console as no human artifice can ever hope to do.

Just as the wetlands need separation from urban encroachment in order to survive, so we as citizens need a separation from urban travails that only wetlands and other natural spaces can afford us. Likewise, it is important that our development allow for separation and preservation of natural space that is accessible here and not in preserves for the wealthy that are hundreds of miles removed from our cities. As the Crombie commission recently pointed out, even the GTA has a natural context and is in a natural environment.

In the town of Whitby, which I have the honour of representing, there are massive developments presently being planned which border upon one of these large marshes. These developments include a prestige industrial site, institutional redevelopment of the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital, other institutions, high- and low-density development for some 14,000 people, and commercial sites. Care has been taken in the planning process to ensure that there will be as little runoff as possible and that the area directly bordering the marshes will be given additional protection and in fact be in a created conservation area.

The care that has been taken to produce an effective environmental management plan should be commended. Equally, the work that local volunteers and natural activists contributed should be commended. Their work ensured that these wetlands would not be neglected in the planning process.

In our area of the province a great deal of attention has been devoted to this issue. In Durham, the Crombie commission heard many submissions and a great public concern regarding the preservation of our wetlands and natural environment. Both the member for Durham West and I presented before that commission. That commission came down with several preliminary recommendations regarding wetland preservation.

I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that such care is taken throughout our great province. Our provincial government should take the lead by ensuring the adequacy of the protection of wetlands. The people of this province have expressed these concerns in many ways and on many occasions. We need to take effective leadership in conservation and environmental protection. We have a clear mandate to do so. I urge the members present to support my friend's resolution and to give it the full weight of this assembly.

Mr G. Wilson: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution by my colleague the member for Durham West. I think he should be congratulated on initiating a well-informed debate that I think bodes well for the work of the committee in focusing this issue so that we can get the needed legislation to protect our wetland watersheds.

I want to make the point that probably all areas of the province need this kind of legislation. Certainly our area, the Kingston and greater Kingston area, is no exception. We have class 1 and class 2 wetlands that are under threat by development. It is ironic that one of the, I guess, most prominent areas to view the watershed is seen from Highway 401, and I certainly want to welcome members of the Legislature to the Kingston area to view the greater Cataraqui watershed from Highway 401.

But it highlights the need to make sure that the development that occurs in these areas is done in a sensitive way that will preserve the watersheds, as many of our colleagues have said, for not only their environmental value but for the heritage that they represent for coming generations.

There are a couple of points I want to highlight, though, in the member for Durham West's resolutions including the need for co-ordination. Several members have already said that there are area councils, for instance, working at cross-purposes in trying to bring development to their area that affects this watershed, and that the wetlands, of course, do not pay heed to the boundaries we draw. They involve several of the ridings, and the co-ordination that has to occur among the various levels of government is essential here.

The second point is the need to expand the wetlands to include the marginal areas; that we cannot have development going right to the edge of the wetlands, because that will damage them just as much as development occurring within them. So there has to be some kind of marginal buffer area of about 100 metres at least, to make sure that the wetlands are preserved in as much a natural state as possible.

I think, then, that raises the question of education, which the resolution also raises as its fourth point. As already has been mentioned, there are conservation authorities working in this area. Certainly the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority has been doing very good work in our area to further the cause of making people aware of what the wetlands include, but this should extend to the schools as well, schools at all levels, so that our citizens will be aware of the need for preservation of the wetlands.

With those points, I would like to, again, congratulate the member for Durham West for his all-encompassing resolution and wish the committee good luck in its focusing on this issue so we can get the legislation that is necessary to preserve our wetlands.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to review some of the comments that were made. The member for Timiskaming raised a very good point. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to having the wetlands expanded to look at all of Ontario. I believe that we must take a long, hard look at the James Bay wetlands and how they fit into the ecosystem of Ontario. I believe he raised some other very good points about class 1 and 2 wetlands. I would hope that the committee would take a look at the criteria that go into defining what a wetland is, with a view to perhaps expanding those criteria to make them even more encompassing so they would catch with a broader net and protect even more wetlands.

I am also pleased that this resolution has sparked some debate. I would like to return to a couple of points made by the member for Halton Centre. As usual, she makes some well-thought-out and pointed comments. The notion of exploring northern Ontario, again, I have no problems with that. The idea of competition, what is in competition with wetlands, and to review how the competition is impacting on wetlands is a very real point, because the three examples I have put in from my own riding speak to that competition.

The Altona forest, for example, is the watershed for the creeks in the area and it is now being proposed for massive subdivision development which will, of course, change the watershed as it exists. Frenchman's Bay has always been under pressure and is now under pressure again from silting up, from upstream development and from developers who want to put townhouses right on the bay and close to the wetlands. Carruthers Creek, I mentioned earlier about a subdivision and also a marina, and also in my riding is Duffin Creek.

All of these watersheds are under impact, because you cannot just look at the wetlands in a narrow definition. It is a broad, watershed definition, and I think the member for Halton Centre has raised that point and has made some very good input to this debate.

Also, we have the competition of livestock, of farming, and how do we balance that? But I think what we need to do, as the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has shown, is make sure that when we examine the issue we do take a look at the ecological balance that is necessary. I think the Brundtland report and subsequent reports that have come out have told us that we have to strike that balance. There is no alternative now; we cannot continue to go down one road, so we must look and say that we are all within an ecosystem and ask how we can make that ecosystem work in its most efficient and best way.

To the member for Simcoe East, I had the opportunity to peruse his comments from the 1986 debate. Again, he has raised some excellent points, very good questions, and I think that he has contributed to the discussion this morning, which I found very valuable. I agree with him we must look at class 1 and 2 farm lands: What are they, how do they fit into the ecosystem, and what are we going to do with them?

In closing, I would like to comment just briefly on two points, and that is the ecosystem and on how I see the debate proceeding. The Crombie commission talks very forcefully and directly about us looking at our entire ecology in an ecosystem way, that we are dependent, one species upon the other, for survival. I had the honour of making a presentation to the Crombie commission, as did my learned friend the member for Durham Centre.

I have shared a stage with Mr Crombie and he speaks eloquently of this need for discussion among the various levels of government and for concrete proposals and for concrete, clearly defined legislation or guidelines that will direct our development in these areas.

In closing, I would like to say that I do not see this debate as being just one more debate going down the road. I really feel sincerely that this committee and the work of this committee should kick off a movement towards creating legislation that has clear

definitions and clearly defines the direction that we want to take in this very important environmental issue.

In closing, I would like to thank all of the speakers for their participation in this debate. I will review Hansard, because I feel the questions they raised are important and excellent questions that we should look at in terms of defining the legislation in the future.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 7.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

NATURAL DEATH ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

WETLAND PROTECTION

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Wiseman has moved resolution 10.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mrs Sullivan: Long before this government was in a position of making decisions, it stated, "New Democrats would ensure decent wages for those who care for our most vital resource -- our children." It is obvious to me and to the people of Ontario that they no longer hold that view.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has made that blatantly clear in her recent pay equity announcement, which discriminates against people employed in commercial day care centres. This is a government that talks about fairness and equity. What is fair or equal when a government deliberately sets out to undermine a certain sector of our workforce?

In Halton, my area, seven out of 10 children from birth to five years old who are in child care are placed in commercial centres. Close to 40% of those children receive subsidized care. Where will these children be placed when commercial centres are forced to close? The approach of this government makes that inevitable. Operators of commercial centres in my area tell me they will be out of business in three to five years. The investment they have made in the community will go with them. People who work in those centres, mainly women, will be put out of work.

My party supports future investment in the non-profit sector, but demands that the vitality of the existing commercial sector be protected and maintained. The Premier has said he would work for all of the people of Ontario. It is clear that he meant all of the people except those people, mostly women, who work in commercial child care centres.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: My statement concerns the recent decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to allow unrestricted native hunting and fishing in Algonquin Provincial Park.

Let me begin by saying there is no doubt in my mind that we have a substantial debt to repay to the members of the first nations. That is a fact that I do not, and in all good conscience cannot, argue with. However, I do object to the minister making this decision without involving all interested parties in native resource agreement negotiations with this government, as he promised. I do object to his decision when he is withholding the Algonquin Provincial Park master plan, which was supposed to be released last fall.

I do object to a decision that was made in advance of hunting, fishing and land claim negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake, which are not scheduled to get under way under 15 June at the earliest.

As I said earlier, I do not object to repaying the debt we owe the members of the first nations, but I do object to a government that does not keep its promises, withholds important documents and then makes an arbitrary decision that will jeopardize Algonquin Park's environmental integrity. I say to the minister that by not keeping his promise of extensive consultation he has threatened Algonquin Park's role in providing a wide range of tourism and recreational opportunities, its contribution to the social and economic life of the region and the protection of its unique historical and natural values.

I hope that the concerns I have raised and the public outcry generated by the minister's ruling will result in his reversing his decision.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr O'Connor: I rise today to support and applaud the efforts of CADA, the Community Against Domestic Abuse committee. This is a committee of the Georgina Community Resource Centre that was formed to establish a shelter for victims of domestic violence in the Georgina area of York region. This shelter is critically needed. There is only one shelter for abused women in all of York region, and that shelter is over 50 kilometres away from Georgina.

The Georgina area has witnessed a very dramatic increase in violent episodes involving women and children. This area has the highest incidence of domestic violence in all of York region. Families are suffering a great deal and CADA has a group of dedicated service providers and community residents determined to provide a shelter for these women and children right in Georgina.

I am pleased that the government of Ontario has provided initial funding of up to $5,000 for this shelter to allow the committee to complete its submission, to access the capital funds under Canada Mortgage and Housing's Project Haven program.

The plan for the shelter is for approximately 12 beds to service a population of 25,000 people, which includes service to the native people living on and off the reserve.

I am pleased to support the CADA group in its efforts to obtain this shelter for battered women and their children in the Georgina area. It has been my great privilege to commend them for their very hard work. We can all be proud of the dedication of the members of the Community Against Domestic Abuse committee and of all the staff of the Georgina Community Resource Centre for their outstanding efforts in prevention of wife assault through community education and this shelter for domestic violence victims.

COMMUNITY POLICE CENTRES

Mr McGuinty: On Tuesday of this week, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of an Ottawa community police centre in my riding. This is the second in a series of four and possibly more community police centres to be opened in Ottawa and Vanier.

With Chief Flanagan acting as their catalyst, the Ottawa police have developed a comprehensive and innovative plan to establish the concept of community policing in their jurisdiction. The community police centre is an integral part of this plan. Each centre, located in a different community, serves not only to allow our police to stimulate the development of the traditional neighbourhood crime prevention programs but, more important, it enables our police and the neighbourhood community to work as a team to solve local problems.

The structure of the community police centre is made up of a civilian committee and an Ottawa police inspector who is supported both by a constable assigned to the centre and a beat officer to work the streets adjoining the centre.

I am pleased to report that our community police centres have been extremely well received by our communities and that the number of volunteers has greatly exceeded the most optimistic expectations. In addition, over $120,000 in cash donations and equipment has been donated to the Ottawa police to assist them to open and equip the community centres.

On behalf of the people of Ottawa South and, if I may be so bold, on behalf of the people of the cities of Ottawa and Vanier, I congratulate Chief Flanagan, the Ottawa police, our police services board and our community volunteers who have participated in the creation of a project which makes tremendous gains in advancing the cause of peace and security in our neighbourhoods. I commend this project to all of the members of this House and to their communities.

EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: The Corporate Higher Education Forum is an organization of senior business executives and the presidents of a number of Canadian universities.

Forum members believe that Canada and individual Canadians stand to benefit from an informed and extensive debate about educational values, goals, means and models. They also believe that the place to start is with our schools, the foundation of lifelong learning.

Over the last couple of years, forum members have become increasingly integrated and concerned about the quality of education at the primary and secondary levels in Canada. The forum recently published an advisory, titled To Be Our Best, Learning for the Future, which provides some background on the quality of education together with the views of forum members and suggested actions which business people may take.

The forum makes a number of recommendations. I would like to emphasize recommendation 3, which states, "That students, their parents and all constituents of the communities in which they live must come to recognize that education is the key to meeting the challenges and seizing the opportunities of a knowledge-based society."

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the forum for their hard work in producing this report. I urge the ministers associated with this report to take a serious look at its recommendations and I look forward to discussing them with them.

We are very fortunate in Canada to have this kind of forum that shows such leadership. I hope we will take advantage of their good advice.

SIGNS OF HOPE CONFERENCE

Mr Waters: I am pleased to have an opportunity to inform the House about a conference on education and the environment that will take place in Huntsville on 15 April.

The Muskoka Environmental Educators Association has done an excellent job of arranging an impressive array of workshops, displays and speakers. The conference theme and title, Signs of Hope, rests on the belief that knowledge and commitment from educators and students in the present will have a positive impact on the future of our environment.

The keynote speaker will be Dr David Suzuki, a prominent environmentalist of world renown, who will bring a message of hope to humankind and will respond adequately to our ecological predicament. Author and journalist Warner Troyer and Chief Gary Potts, as well as 30 other distinguished speakers, will make representations.

I ask all members of the House to join me in support of the Signs of Hope conference on 15 April in Huntsville, for together we can become part of the solution.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of many members in the House that I think we can do a better job in question period. I will be sending you some recommendations on how I think we might improve the productivity of question period. As I am sure you have probably noticed, each time the opposition asks a question of the government on action, we tend to get one of, I think, five standard responses, and they are the same responses each time.

Perhaps to make question period more productive, Mr Speaker, why do we not simply have you get a copy of these five standard answers and have them provided to each of the members of the House. The minister who is being questioned simply needs to respond by quoting the number of the appropriate standard answer. I think we could greatly speed up the proceedings and save the embarrassment all around of hearing the same answer repeated over and over again. To give you an example, Mr Speaker, I think I have written down the standard answers.

The first one is on inaction for the Agenda For People. This, I think, is the Treasurer's own answer. This is the one that we suggest he use and it goes something like this: We ask a question on the Agenda for People. The minister simply says it is answer 1 and we read the answer. It says: "Surely the member can appreciate that when we prepared the Agenda for People we had all the answers because we didn't know exactly what we were doing. Now that we know what we're doing, we don't know what the answers are."

I think that was the Treasurer's response, but I have suggested the other four standard answers and I appreciate your consideration, Mr Speaker.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Tilson: Yesterday a consultant's report was released that indicated Ontario had a dire shortage of affordable housing. It went on to recommend that the Ontario government construct 27,000 non-profit and co-operative housing units. If the government proceeds, it will cost $3 billion to build the units and another $298 million in annual operating subsidies over 35 years.

All three parties recognize that Ontario has a rental housing crisis on its hands, but we contend that the current situation has been created by government regulation of the housing market. As a result of rent controls, the private sector no longer builds rental accommodation; the taxpayer is financing virtually every new unit that is being built.

The Liberals committed $3 billion to construct 30,000 units under the Homes Now program, with an additional $300 million in annual operating subsidies over 35 years. As the Homes Now, Project 3000 and Project 3600 units come on stream, operating subsidies will reach over $875 million by 1993-94 with a mature annual cost of $1 billion, an increase of over 300% from the Ministry of Housing's 1985-86 budget of $243 million. These skyrocketing costs are all before the Treasurer allocates an additional $3 billion.

We cannot afford to build every rental unit in this province. The NDP must recognize that taxpayers have been pushed to their limits. We must work with the private sector to build additional rental housing stock. I urge the government to rethink Bill 4. It will only make things worse.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Malkowski: This morning I saw with much disgust and dismay a cartoon on page 10 of the Toronto Sun depicting a blind police officer on the workforce. It is reprehensible that any media would allow material for publication demeaning the efforts of employment equity and all that it stands for. This is particularly a profound and offensive insult to the blind people who do not even have the advantage of seeing this pictorial for themselves.

The concept of employment equity is to assist disabled people to participate fully in society and change the negative attitudes which have been too long-standing. Employment equity is a concept which removes employment barriers; identifies and removes discriminatory policies and practices; seeks the goal of fair representation for all Ontarians and Canadians, in particular women, aboriginals, disabled persons and visible minorities; and promotes economic development through the full utilization of talents of all people.

This is a human rights issue, a non-partisan issue. Affirmative action should be addressed in an affirmative fashion. We are all proud that affirmative action is represented here in this House and is a positive model of this concept, and I would encourage all members of this House to express their views and demand that the Toronto Sun make a public apology immediately.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker: Yesterday, the honourable Leader of the Opposition and the House leader for the third party both presented a point of order with respect to the government notice of motion 16, which appears on the order paper under the name of the government House leader.

I would like to thank them, as well as the other members who contributed to these points, for their thoughtful and well-presented arguments. I have had time to consider them and I will now give my ruling on both points.

The point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition is an important one. He and others have argued that because of our notice provisions the House has, in a certain way, been taken by surprise by the government House leader's notice of motion.

The rule of notice is one that is found in various applications in most Parliaments and its purpose is clearly to make sure that members of the House should not be surprised by a measure being proposed to them and for which they would not have had time to prepare to debate adequately.

Until 1970 in the Ontario Legislature, the rule that applied to notice was the following:

"Two days' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address; for the appointment of any committee; or for the putting of a question; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of the meeting or adjournment of the House; such notices to be laid on the table before 5 o'clock pm, and to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day."

Members will have noticed that this rule specified that two days' notice had to be given for substantive motions.

In 1970, this House decided to change that rule, and it is the one that guides us presently and reads as follows:

"All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day."

What happened in 1970 was that the House decided to remove one of the days that applied to notice. It is also important to point out in this matter that our standing orders prescribe only one rule with regard to notice and does not distinguish between various types of substantive motions.

In the House of Commons in Ottawa, they have kept the two days' required notice for substantive motions, but in giving themselves a specific standing order related to allocation of time, they have seen the necessity of only one day's notice being required.

In this case the Chair has no alternative but to find that according to our standing orders, the notice of motion on the order paper is in order. Under standing order 51 it requires only one day's notice, that is to say, it must be filed before 5 o'clock the previous day, and on the first day that it appears in the Orders and Notices it can be moved. If there was to be a change to this, it would have to come about in the normal way that changes are made to the standing orders, that is, by a motion brought before the House in order to amend the standing orders.

The second point of order, that raised by the honourable member for Parry Sound, is also a very serious point, especially in a House that does not have a codified time allocation procedure.

While considering all of the arguments raised and comparing them with the precedents created by this House since 1982, I have found that no really new arguments were raised yesterday that had not previously been dealt with by my predecessors in my chair.

A time allocation motion is a valid procedure. It attaches itself to a specific subject matter before the House and stipulates how it shall be dealt with. It is in the form of a motion which is fully debatable under our rules, and once it is passed, constitutes an order of the House stating how a certain piece of legislation is to be further studied. Notice of motion 16, presently before the House, is in order and conforms in every way with the practices and precedents of this House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WAGE PROTECTION

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to tell the members that I will be bringing forward today the government's employee wage protection program. This program represents a major achievement in strengthening the rights of workers in Ontario. It is in difficult economic times such as we are experiencing today that we have to increase protection for workers and ensure that they do not become victims of circumstances they cannot control. This program, set out in the Agenda for People and announced by the Premier in October, forms an integral part of our government's comprehensive approach to labour adjustment. It will allow workers owed money to reclaim that money in a timely and efficient way.

The employee wage protection program will be one of three major amendments to the Employment Standards Act which I will be introducing today. First, as the Premier promised last October, we are establishing a program that will cover workers whose employers have failed to pay wages, vacation, severance and termination pay.

Second, in cases where an employer does not or cannot pay, we will amend the Employment Standards Act to enable employees, or the government on their behalf, to obtain the money owed to them from the directors and officers of the company by extending the liabilities that presently exist under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. Finally, we are establishing new, quicker appeals procedures for both workers and employers to deal with all aspects of the Employment Standards Act.

I would like to give the members the details of these amendments that we are proposing.

Ontario's employee wage protection program will be retroactive to cover workers affected since 1 October 1990, the day this government took office.

The employment standards branch of my ministry has already received more than 12,000 potential claims for compensation from workers since the Premier announced our intention to create this program. These workers are unable to collect their earned wages and other entitlements due to their employer's insolvency, closure or simple failure to pay.

Considering the severity of the current recession, my ministry officials estimate that in the first 18 months of the employee wage protection program, more than 50,000 workers will benefit. Employees qualified for compensation from the program will be able to collect earned wages, vacation, severance and termination pay to a maximum of $5,000. We feel that the $5,000 in compensation for wages and other earned entitlement does provide a substantial measure of protection, especially to the most vulnerable workers in the province.

Even with this $5,000 ceiling, we estimate the cost of the program to be some $175 million in the first 18 months of coverage. In addition, the legislation does allow the government to increase the maximum compensation from time to time through changes in the regulations.

It is our intention to have the employee wage protection program operating as soon as possible following the proclamation of this legislation. The government hopes for full co-operation from all members of the House to ensure speedy and expeditious passage.

When the employee wage protection program is operational, employees who have been unsuccessful in obtaining wages or other money owed them by their employer will file a claim with the employment standards branch, as is the current practice. These claims will then be investigated for validity, once again, as is the current practice.

Presently, where the employer is insolvent, it is often impossible to collect the money owing, despite the best efforts of the branch. With the establishment of the employee wage protection program, when entitlement is established, employees will be compensated from the program, even if the employer is insolvent and unable to pay.

If, for whatever reason, a solvent employer does not meet his or her obligations, those affected employees will also have access to the program.

The amendments I am announcing today will also provide for enhanced enforcement. We will take the liability that currently exists under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for directors' responsibilities for debts, extend it to officers, and apply it to the Employment Standards Act. Officers and directors may be liable for up to six months' wages and twelve months' vacation pay.

Because of these changes, officers and directors will have a three-month grace period from the effective date of the legislation to obtain liability insurance if they wish to.

Finally, the amendments to the Employment Standards Act will create new, more efficient appeals processes for both workers and employers. Appeals initiated by employers, directors or officers or by the director of employment standards must start within 45 days of the application, and an approved adjudication process will be set up for workers. Our new streamlined appeals process will allow workers to obtain quickly money they have earned, while providing the employers with a speedy right of appeal.

I want to emphasize that the government expects employers to continue to live up to their obligations to their employees. By setting out this legislation, we are strengthening the power of the employment standards branch to ensure that these responsibilities are carried out. In addition, we are creating the backup security that workers need to obtain the money owed them by their employers, especially in cases where the employers are unable to meet their financial responsibilities due to insolvency.

In the consultations on this legislation, workers and the employer groups agreed that wage protection measures would be of real benefit to workers by removing the uncertainty and fear of non-payment of wages, especially in these difficult economic times. In this government, we believe it is absolutely necessary to pay people the wages they have earned for the work they have done, and we believe that these employees should be paid their money promptly, without undue or unforeseen obstacles. For these reasons, the employee wage protection program will offer workers quick recourse to their entitlements.

The wage protection program is a measure that this government is proud to introduce today. I trust we can count on the support of all members of the House to ensure that deserving employees recoup their wages as expeditiously as possible.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank the members of the ministry, the members of my own staff and legislative counsel for the large amount of work, including overtime, that they have had to do over the past weeks in preparing this particular complex piece of legislation.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Hon Ms Churley: I wish to announce that a binding order has been issued against the Ontario Science Centre for violation of the province's Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The action results from a ministry investigation into a contract signed between the OSC and the sultanate of Oman for the provision of a children's museum.

The binding order includes the following measures: The OSC has acknowledged it violated the Discriminatory Business Practices Act; the OSC will make public documents related to the contract with the sultanate of Oman; the OSC will not discriminate in future business practices; the OSC will revise its administrative practices and other policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Discriminatory Business Practices Act; the OSC's board of directors must approve all future international contracts and submit them to the director responsible for the Discriminatory Business Practices Act for review before they are signed.

The investigation concluded that Mark Abbot, the director general of the centre, in 1990 signed a contract with the Sultanate of Oman which contravened the Discriminatory Business Practices Act. The board of the Ontario Science Centre was not apprised of the contents of the contract prior to its finalization. The contract was signed despite concerns raised by the lawyers in the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

The Discriminatory Business Practices Act contains a provision prohibiting a person or organization from entering into discriminatory transactions. It was passed by the Ontario Legislature in 1978.

The Ontario Science Centre incident was most unfortunate and one that serves to highlight the importance of eliminating discriminatory practices whenever they occur. I believe the decision taken in connection with this incident has been appropriate and will best serve the public interest. My ministry will monitor the situation with the Ontario Science Centre to ensure full compliance of the binding order. I am tabling in the House today a copy of the binding compliance order.

COMMUNITY JUSTICE WEEK

Hon Mr Hampton: I would like to take a few moments to inform the members of the Legislature that 15 April marks the beginning of Community Justice Week in Ontario, an annual event reaching out into local communities across the province to foster understanding and involvement in the justice system. Sponsored by the Ontario ministries of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, Community Justice Week demonstrates our commitment to a more accessible, more affordable and, perhaps more important, a more humane and understandable system of jus