36th Parliament, 2nd Session

L066B - Tue 8 Dec 1998 / Mar 8 Déc 1998 1

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE


The House met at 1832.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE

Mr Klees, on behalf of Mrs Ecker, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 72, An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à régir les adoptions internationales et à mettre en oeuvre la Convention sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale afin de favoriser l'intérêt véritable des enfants.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise to open debate on third reading of Bill 72, the Intercountry Adoption Act, 1998. If passed, Bill 72 would fulfill two very important objectives: First, it would provide a framework for safeguarding the rights and the best interests of children and families involved in adoptions of children from other countries; second, it would implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption in Ontario, an important international agreement governing adoptions.

In recent years, the number of Ontario families who are adopting children from other countries has been increasing significantly. For example, in 1996, Ontario had 588 intercountry adoptions, which represents roughly 30% of all intercountry adoptions taking place in Canada for that year, and the number continues to grow.

Many of these adoptions proceed smoothly, but there have also been many incidents where the child, the adoptive family or the birth family involved have been exploited. For example, in some countries, birth parents' consent and other adoption documents have been falsified, parents have been asked to make illegal payments to buy children and children have been kidnapped from their birth families to be put up for adoption.

Children adopted from other countries can also face challenges that make them particularly vulnerable. For example, many of them are very young or have a difficult history of institutional care. Some have been orphaned at an early age, spent time in refugee camps or have special medical or emotional needs.

There is an urgent need to protect these children and their adoptive and birth families. However, under the current legislation there is very little we can do. The Child and Family Services Act currently applies only to adoptions that are completed in an Ontario court. This means that we do not have the authority to safeguard the rights and best interests of children and families if the adoption is completed outside of this country.

As a result, hundreds of children enter the province each year without the necessary assessment of the adoptive parents. The result is that we really have no way of ensuring that the adoptive parents will make good parents. In some of these cases, problems have come to light following the adoption. For example, we have heard about children who have been adopted by convicted child abusers or who have been used as a source of cheap labour. The child protection system has become involved in some of these situations, and some have become wards of the crown.

I know members of this House share my belief that this is unacceptable in a province that puts such a high value on the protection of children. With the safety and security of children at risk, it is critical that we act to establish legal requirements that will better protect them. That's why Bill 72 proposes to do precisely that. The proposed legislation would establish requirements for all intercountry adoptions that must be met here in Ontario. First and foremost, these requirements address the safety and the security of the children involved. Second, they provide better protection for adoptive and birth families from exploitation.

It was concern about the exploitation of children and families involved in intercountry adoptions that led Canada and 65 other countries to negotiate and endorse the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption in 1993. The Hague convention is a framework for international co-operation. By setting standards for adoptions between countries, it prevents underground market activity and it protects children, birth families and adoptive families from being exploited throughout the adoption process.

Canada signed the convention in 1993. But adoption is a provincial responsibility in Canada, so each province has to pass specific legislation to enact the provisions of the convention for Canada to meet its international commitment. So far, nine provinces and territories have either implemented the convention or plan to do so by the end of this year. Other countries are also moving ahead with implementation of the Hague convention; 25 of the 66 signatory countries have in fact completed this step.

There is a growing likelihood that some of those countries could stop allowing adoptions by Ontario residents until Ontario also implements the convention. We have already experienced the consequences of this. Earlier this year, a number of Ontario families experienced delays in completing the adoption of Romanian children after Romania changed its adoption laws.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Good thing they had the federal Liberals to help them.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please, member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Klees: While an interim agreement between the governments of Ontario and Romania allowed those adoptions to go through, Romania will not permit any further adoptions by Ontario residents until Ontario implements the convention.

Mr Duncan: Those kids are in the country now.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Mr Klees: But implementing the Hague convention in Ontario is only part of the solution.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't think we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie, continue.

1840

Mr Klees: Implementing the Hague Convention in Ontario is only part of the solution.

Mr Duncan: The kids are here now, Frank, no help from you guys. You were too busy closing schools and hospitals.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Mr Klees: Quite frankly, I agree with the member from Walkerville that it should have been done sooner. The fact of the matter is that we're here now and we're getting it done, not because, as the member from Walkerville would have us believe, it was due to his initiative, because we know that the member opposite -

Mr Duncan: No, the federal Liberals, Frank.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Klees: - spent a great deal of time doing what he should do, and that is advocating on behalf of people who come to him and put this matter before him, as did many members of this House, as did I.

The first time I was contacted concerning this was in December 1997. That was the time Ms Alison Pentland-Folk came to see me. In fact, I have a letter from her that very succinctly sets out the issue relating to intercountry adoption and the issue of the Hague agreement. Ms Pentland-Folk is with us in the gallery today. We welcome her and want to take this opportunity to recognize the very hard work she did in terms of lobbying for this piece of legislation that is before the House today. Not only did she lobby very effectively with members of the government, but she clearly made every effort to speak to members of the opposition. We commend her for the work that she has done, and she should take great pride to have seen the legislative process work. She has seen that all members of the House can work together on a piece of legislation in a non-partisan way, particularly the member from Walkerville, who is having a great deal of fun this evening trying to provoke the Speaker, which of course he can't do. I know, Speaker, you would intervene, because we have much more important business to discuss this evening.

Mr Duncan: This is very important, Frank.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Klees: But we're very pleased that he will be voting for this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Just a moment. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order.

Go ahead.

Mr Klees: We're very pleased that he is in such a hurry to implement this legislation. I wonder if he would call for unanimous consent of the House to just pass this without any further ado. I wonder if he'd be willing to do that.

Mr Duncan: Certainly at 9 o'clock this evening we will be happy to do that.

The Acting Speaker: He doesn't have the floor to do that. You should continue.

Mr Klees: I just thought I'd see what he would say. He's prepared to delay it by another two hours, and that's fair. I suppose he wants to get on record and express his very strong support for this bill. But we could have advanced it by two hours, Speaker, as you saw. The member from Walkerville wasn't prepared to do that.

Over 80% of the intercountry adoptions by Ontarians in 1997 involved children from countries that have not yet implemented the convention, countries such as China, Russia and Guatemala, which are not obliged to follow the same standards and requirements as those countries that are signatories to that agreement.

Bill 72 would establish provincial requirements for all intercountry adoptions completed in other countries, whether those countries have implemented the Hague Convention or not. For example, under the proposed requirements, all families who want to adopt a child from another country would need to prove their eligibility and their suitability to do so. First, they must make an application; second, they must obtain an adoption home study assessing their eligibility and suitability to adopt; and third, they must obtain approval based on that home study.

People who leave Ontario to pursue an intercountry adoption without first getting approval could, under this act, be charged. If convicted, they could be fined or jailed. In the case of an unfavourable report, the applicant would have the right to appeal to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

A second advantage of Bill 72 is that it would allow us to regulate private intercountry adoption facilitators. Under the current Child and Family Services Act, we do not have the authorization to licence, to monitor or to regulate these individuals or organizations.

We're aware of many international adoption facilitators operating in Ontario without any form of regulation. While most of these individuals and organizations are knowledgeable and ethical, we have received through our ministry a number of complaints about some facilitators who do not appear to operate in an ethical manner. These complaints range from the facilitators' unfamiliarity with the adoption laws of the other country to many other irregularities that can result in significant charges to the adoptive parents. The exorbitant fees can create considerable difficulties for the adoptive families, who are already undergoing a very complex procedure.

One facilitator alone has been the subject of numerous complaints and allegations, including misrepresentation of the medical assessment of the child, demanding thousands of dollars in hidden fees from the adoptive parents, falsifying documents from other countries, colluding with individuals in other countries to kidnap children from those countries, and collecting fees for the placement of the same child with two different families. With the assistance of the federal and foreign governments, our ministry has confirmed the validity of most of these complaints, but we have not had the authority to this point to take any action. While some clients successfully sued, the facilitator has now left the country, leaving a number of debts.

In another case, an individual in Ontario with no knowledge of adoption, with no knowledge of child development or social work, set up an agency specializing in adoptions from China. This individual made claims about connections in that country and an ability to obtain younger and healthier children faster than any other facilitator in the province. Several dozen Ontario families paid the facilitator to help them adopt from China. The facilitator has since disappeared, along with the funds that were paid by the adoptive parents. The families involved had to start the process all over again.

The proposed legislation would protect adoptive parents from such unscrupulous operations by providing the authorization to set specific criteria for private intercountry adoptions. These criteria would require facilitators to be competent, experienced and knowledgeable. Their activities would also then be monitored by the province. These provisions would significantly reduce the incidence of these abuses and ensure that adoption facilitators do not contribute to delays in the process through a lack of knowledge of the adoption process or of the requirements of other countries involved.

Bill 72 includes additional safeguards regarding services for which a fee can be charged or paid. For example, intercountry adoption facilitators would not be permitted to charge nor would adoption applicants be permitted to pay for services that are not listed in the regulations to the act.

I know members of this House will agree that there is nothing more important to a child than a permanent, loving family. For many children, that family can only be found through adoption, and more and more in Ontario those adoptions are from other countries.

I also believe it behooves us as a Legislature in this province to ensure that the adoption option is made much more available to individuals within our own province, that those families, those women who would like to consider putting their children up for adoption, whatever the extenuating circumstances might be, have the availability of that information as to what the process is, what the procedure is.

1850

Bill 72 would best safeguard the interests of our children. It would help families interested in adopting children from outside of Canada and reduce the potential for exploitation. I'd like to point out that the requirements set down in this proposed legislation are very similar to the existing rules for adopting children in Ontario under the Child and Family Services Act. In other words, Bill 72 insists that all Ontario children, whether they were born here or in another country, are entitled to a safe and healthy family life. It also ensures that Ontario residents who open their hearts and their homes to these children deserve support and encouragement.

To summarize, the legislation we're considering today provides comprehensive solutions to the challenges presented by intercountry adoptions. It enshrines the principle of the child's best interests in all intercountry adoptions, whether or not the country involved has implemented the Hague convention. It introduces a fair, consistent and standardized system for all intercountry adoptions. It removes the future possibility of Ontario residents being denied adoptions from countries that have signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and it provides a framework for safeguarding the rights of children, birth parents and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoptions. The Intercountry Adoption Act is another important step this government is taking to protect vulnerable children and support the families of this province.

In closing, I'd like to pay tribute to some of the individuals who have contacted me and other members of the Legislature. I think of Jeff and Sandra Dyck, who are constituents who first contacted me in February of this year to express to me their wish to adopt and to again explain to me, as Ms Pentland-Folk had done on so many occasions, the complexities involved, to encourage our government to prioritize this issue.

I had the opportunity as well to have some discussions with Connie Miceli of Concord, who wrote to me in June and again expressed the fact that she as a potential adoptive parent was so frustrated with the process, with the red tape that's involved, and urged us to take this initiative.

Jean Middleton and Elaine McDougall, with whom I met in January of this year, also took great pains to ensure that as a government we are familiar with the circumstances of adoption, not only around the intercountry adoption issue but also with regard to the fact that so much more has to be done within the province to ensure that people who want to adopt have the appropriate information available to them.

On behalf of all of the members certainly of the government, I want to thank those potential adoptive parents who took the time to meet with us, to share with us their burden regarding the importance of this matter.

I want to take this opportunity as well to thank the Minister of Community and Social Services, who advocated very strongly on behalf of these parents on this issue with members of cabinet to ensure that we had the time available on the floor of this Legislature to deal with this piece of legislation before we rise for our break this year.

I urge all members of the House to support this legislation so that we can have it implemented without any further delay. I regret that the member for Windsor-Walkerville wasn't prepared to advance the quick passage of this, and so we'll have to wait the additional two hours for that to happen, but I think I understand his motivation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? If there's no further debate on the Tory side, then we'll take questions and comments, if there are any. OK, further debate. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: I'd like to share my time with the member for Ottawa Centre. Do I require unanimous consent?

The Acting Speaker: You don't, but thank you for informing us.

Mr Duncan:. I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 72, the Intercountry Adoption Act, and say to the House first off that I support this bill. I would have supported it in 1996 when Canada ratified the Hague convention. I would have supported it in January 1996, in February 1996, in March 1996, in April 1996, in May 1996, in June 1996. I would have supported it in July 1996, I would have supported it in August 1996, and the list goes on. So when I hear the member, the minister's parliamentary assistant, say he's concerned that we're delaying it two hours, I say to him, where were you two years ago?

Ontario becomes the seventh jurisdiction in Canada to ratify the accord, yet Ontario, according to the National Adoption Desk, has the most children who were affected by this legislation. I welcome the good words of the member opposite and his minister, but I'd like to share with the House my experience with this particular piece of legislation, because unlike the member opposite, I came upon it because of a constituent.

On January 4 of this year, I had a call from a constituent in my office and she began to tell me a story about adopting a child from Romania. It was a very compelling story. It was a story full of heartache, it was a story full of concern, it was a story full of anxiety. I picked up the phone that day and I called the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I must tell you that when I spoke to the minister that morning, I hung up the phone and I felt good. I thought, "The minister understands this issue, the minister is compassionate about this issue, and the minister is going to work with these people to try and resolve the dilemma they are faced with."

The minister assured me that she and/or her staff would be back in touch with us within a matter of days. I should tell you that at that time there were 35 children in Canada, 34 of whom were in Ontario, whose adoption was at risk. There were 34 families in this province, good families, loving families, and, in the case of the family I dealt with, people who had been waiting almost a year and a half for their baby, waiting for Ontario to ratify the Hague convention. I say that I was genuinely satisfied by the minister that day that she would move quickly to solve this particular problem.

Well, a week went by, and then two weeks went by, and a month went by. People in the audience and in the House must understand that at this point in time six other Canadian provinces and two territories had passed the amendments necessary to implement the ratification of the Hague convention. Then a month went by, and then two months went by, and there was no response from the government. We raised the issue in the Legislature. We talked about it. We advised the families to bear with the government. We believed they were going to act in everyone's best interests and that it was their intention to bring forward legislation as quickly as possible. Another month went by and we were towards the end of March. You know what started happening then? Those families were threatened with losing their children. After months of prodding the government to bring forward the legislation, no legislation was forthcoming.

1900

Then a group of the families came to the Legislature and did a press conference here. They didn't want to have to do that. They should have been able to have done this in January; should have been able to have done it in 1996; should have been able to have done it in 1997. But oh, no, they were too busy closing hospitals, too busy closing schools to deal with something like 34 families who were caught in what I would describe as the worst bureaucratic entanglement I have witnessed in 10 years in elective office and some 25 years doing political work.

No, the government wasn't prepared. In fact the government stalled and delayed and we couldn't figure out why, because as I said to the families, this was a no-brainer. Maybe that explains it. Now I see the absolute hypocrisy and tomfoolery of the member opposite standing in this House and trying to take credit, when most of those families' conditions have been satisfied not because the government moved in a timely fashion but rather because you've been shamed into it. Admittedly this bill will protect families on this side in the future and it will protect children in other countries. But you did absolutely nothing for those 34 families. You were too busy. You didn't return their calls. The minister didn't meet with them until we brought pressure.

I applaud my colleague Joe Cordiano, and I think it needs to be said tonight that there's been a private member's bill on the order paper for some months that, had the Legislature, had the government, had the will to bring forward, could have had this passed by July. What happened to those 34 families? Let me tell you what happened to those 34 families. In addition to the heartache of knowing they had a child waiting for them in another jurisdiction, some of them found out they were being dealt with by unscrupulous agents in those other countries. One family I am aware of was paying close to $1,000US a month while you dragged your silly feet.

Interjection.

Mr Duncan: This bill is simple. The member laughs. The member for Lanark-Renfrew laughs. Obviously he has not experienced the heartache of waiting for an adopted child. You can make fun of those people all you want. You can take your partisan stand and do your little spiel.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Duncan: But where were you last spring when we were asking for this legislation? You weren't here advocating. You were busy closing hospitals in your riding, closing schools in your riding, and you simply didn't care.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, could you direct your comments to the Chair, please?

Mr Duncan: The member for Lanark-Renfrew laughs about this. He laughs about the pain those people experienced and he didn't bother to speak about this last spring.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Duncan: The government likes to talk a good game, but let me give you the timelines. Let me give you the time frames and highlights that the government ignored. The government ignored -

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I hope you will address the member for Windsor-Walkerville who has the floor. My point is that I hope you will address that he is out of order to refer to a member on a personal basis and not on a matter that is before this House.

The Acting Speaker: I ask all members to be respectful of each other. I was listening carefully. I would request he make an apology. However, I must say that strictly, technically, he was not out of order. But I would ask all members to try -

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's not a matter to play politics on.

The Acting Speaker: Come to order, please, Minister. I ask all members to try to be a little bit more respectful to each other and to address the Chair.

Mr Duncan: It would have been good if the government had brought this bill forward in February of this year, in March of this year, in April of this year, in May of this year or in June of this year, but they chose not to. Let me tell you what happened in the interim to those 34 families. Let me tell you exactly what happened.

Those children are now in the country. The government is now bringing in its legislation and is trying to catch it up to date, but we've dealt with the problem. We dealt with it through a couple of steps. The first involved a memorandum of understanding, and I must give the government credit. It did the memorandum of understanding. Unfortunately this bill, which is simple legislation by anybody's definition, that's not complicated, could have been brought forward.

The government has talked about piousness. It's talked about respect. It's talked about politicizing. The government could have solved this problem with the unanimous consent of the House, which we offered in this House in March of this year, in April of this year, in May of this year and in June of this year. In fact, we offered it on four separate occasions: unanimous consent to bring it forward.

It was the subject of a number of questions in the House. There is the private member's bill of Mr Cordiano, my colleague from Lawrence. It has been subject to much debate. The government can talk a good game but those 34 kids are in the country now, no thanks to them.

Thank God the federal Liberals were looking out for the people of this province. Let me say to the members opposite, they like to talk a good game, but when they refused to act, it was through the good offices of our federal colleagues that made sure this happened. It's unfortunate because this could have been dealt with last spring. Here we are in December 1998.

According to the government's bill, Canada ratified the convention in 1996, and since that time six provinces and one territory have ratified that convention. In fact, those six provinces and one territory had ratified it prior to January of this year, 12 months ago.

We welcome this bill and we'll support it. It provides certain rights and protections, not only for the families here in Canada who wish to adopt, but also for the children who are coming from those countries.

Here we are, December 8, 1998, a full two years subsequent to the ratification of that convention, and Ontario, the supposedly lead jurisdiction in this area, has yet to ratify it. Here we are giving our speeches. I applaud the advocates who worked hard for two years on this legislation, and I applaud the families who had to wait and endure tremendous anxiety, who were exploited in certain circumstances while this government didn't deal with it. Yes, we want to talk about it tonight for an hour and a half.

You had two years since our country ratified this convention and you did nothing. The 34 children who were caught in the maze are here.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Name the months. January, February, March, April -

Mr Duncan: It is unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture of this province would make light of it, that he would be proud that they have delayed it. I am proud that we helped bring those children here. I am proud we forced your hand, because it simply wasn't a high enough priority for you. If it was, why are we dealing with it now?

1910

I remind the members in the House and the people in the audience that we offered unanimous support for this bill and for Mr Cordiano's bill some months ago. It speaks a lot about this government and what its priorities are. It doesn't have time for 34 families who are caught in a terrible bureaucratic wrangle. And yes, here they are tonight extolling the virtues of their bill which is, frankly, two years late.

We dealt with those problems. We welcome the bill so that no other families will be exposed to what you exposed them to for the last year, because you could have acted and you chose not to. You could have brought in a bill very quickly and you chose not to. Otherwise, why are we debating it tonight? Why wasn't it done in January? Give me one good reason.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): The House didn't sit in January.

Mr Duncan: The members on the government side talk about the opposition controlling - we don't control the agenda, no more than we control the $600,000 payout to cover a sex scandal that you forced in this House today, no more than we closed the 39 hospitals after your leader, our Premier, said, "It is not our plan to close any hospitals." You could have done this. You could have done it in 1996, you could have done it in 1997, you could have done it in 1998.

It's unfortunate the Conservative government doesn't care. You don't care. We're sitting here tonight because you didn't deal with it. I remember the night we had the families here and the minister came and gave a pious comment about the importance of legislation, and then the minister did nothing.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): You had too much bricks and mortar.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North, come to order.

Mr Duncan: Here we are in December, six or seven months after the families have been united with their children, passing a bill that from their perspective is retroactive.

I'll quote from the people who were affected. They didn't understand why you would delay. It's really unfortunate, because as I said at the time - I genuinely believed the minister on January 4, 1998, that she would deal with it quickly. It took them months just to get a memorandum of understanding. We were behind six of 10 provinces, one of two territories, and then we get lectured about how much the government cares. It's unfortunate.

I want to applaud the federal government for intervening directly with the authorities. By the way, the government didn't even get its memorandum of understanding right the first two times. The memorandum of understanding wasn't done right.

Mr Spina: Are you waiting for Herb to retire so you can run federally?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North.

Mr Duncan: The reality for all of us is that we are sitting here on December 8, 1998, passing a bill which we'll all agree to. It could have had unanimous consent almost a year ago. It will get unanimous consent in less than two hours, in an hour and three quarters. The 34 children who are most affected are here now - the government forgets to talk about that - due to the good efforts of the federal government. It's nothing to do with this government, other than its feet-dragging. It could have been done months ago. We regret that truly.

We will support the bill. We regret that it is as untimely as it is. We regret that this government refused to respond to the legitimate needs of 34 families, 34 children. We regret that, but it speaks volumes about this government, speaks volumes about what they are about, speaks volumes about what they are not about. People won't forget, just like they didn't forget when we had the crowd of them here in March of this year. You weren't there; your minister wasn't there. You didn't bother. It wasn't important enough for this government.

You can give all the polemics you want tonight. You can suggest that you've dealt with the problem; you haven't. You are retroactively dealing with the problem. Yes, this bill will protect families in the future, but it's unfortunate that it is such a low priority for this government, because it truly was a no-brainer. It's one that could have been done very quickly. Look at the bill itself. It's simple. It's really easy. It's a no-brainer and it could have been done months ago.

On behalf of the families that have their children here, and those children were glad to see this legislation, I'll be in the House to vote in favour of it, as will my colleagues. I applaud the member for Lawrence, Joe Cordiano, who brought forward his private member's bill, a bill that would have achieved the same results as this and could have been passed seven months ago. It's most unfortunate that the government didn't deal with this in a timely fashion, so here we are, pleased to vote in favour of this bill, saddened that it wasn't done two years ago.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My robust colleague from Windsor-Walkerville has explained the situation fairly clearly, that this could already have been passed. I will express a few comments on this, not in an attempt to provoke my colleagues across the floor. It is a little ironic, and I will take the opportunity because of the importance of this bill and its passage, to ask, why are we here? We had all parties agree on this bill. There was debate in the House on Bill 23, which preceded this, the bill under which this bill was drafted. Bill 23 was a bill put forward by a colleague of mine from Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, and 95% of this is based on that private member's bill. If the government chooses to overtake it rather than perhaps giving credit to another member who might not be from the government, that's fine.

Having said that, we've said time and time again that we all agree with this. What more is there to be said? Quite frankly, very little is to be said in addition to what has already been said over the hours on an issue on which we have universal acceptance. So why are we here two weeks before our Christmas break, taking up more time? The government could have come forward from committee and said, "The request from the government is that we move immediately to a vote on third reading," and you know what? It would be finished and done.

But of course the government wants to have more time. We're here every night until midnight from now until Christmas. There are numerous bills, ladies and gentlemen, that are of extreme import and extremely contentious which are time-allocated and forced through in a limited amount of time, and this one isn't. Of course it isn't, because the government knows all the parties agree on this. We're just going through the motions in one sense, and I'm kind of sad on that note, to even have to say that.

I remind my friends in the House and anyone who may be listening to this discussion that because of rule changes that have limited the democracy of private members and individual members in this House, we get this kind of thing, which is a waste of time because there is nothing more to be said. We all agree. But because of the rule changes -

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Well, sit down. You can sit down any time.

Mr Patten: The minister says, "Sit down." I'll ask the minister, why didn't the government propose that we get on with debating other issues where we had disagreement? No, because they're afraid. Anything contentious, they are afraid of and they ram it through. Anything where it isn't, they give us hours and hours on a particular issue. They send out for hearings bills that are not at all contentious. The ones that are, that we request to have hearings on because we want to hear from the people of Ontario, they won't agree to. That's why I point this out.

Interjections.

1920

Mr Patten: I would like to say, given the opportunity - maybe for some members in the House the best thing I can do is essentially restate -

Interjections.

Mr Patten: The members on the other side say, "Sit down." They're so sensitive, aren't they?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: You've said it yourself. There's nothing left to say.

Mr Patten: There's nothing left to say in terms of a debate because all parties agreed to this a year ago. But when we look at recognizing what the convention does, I'll just go over this because I think it is worth revisiting. What does a state signatory to the present convention agree to?

"Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

"Recalling that each state should take, as a matter of priority, appropriate measures to enable the child to remain in the care of his or her family of origin,

"Recognizing that intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her state of origin."

I won't read you the rest of the first part, but I will review briefly the objectives of the convention, which are:

"(a) to establish safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognized in international law;

"(b) to establish a system of co-operation amongst contracting states to ensure that those safeguards are respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children;

"(c) to secure the recognition in contracting states of adoptions made in accordance with the convention."

The specific details of how this is done are laid out in the rest of the convention.

We are here to ratify the Hague convention and acknowledge the role of a UN agency that we do not acknowledge sufficiently. There are many UN agencies: UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which I had the honour of working for as a student many years ago. In my opinion, many of these agencies have played an honourable, important and credible role in times in which even the member states of the United Nations were not in full agreement. To some degree this is true here, because the adoption by various states has not been unanimous. We are witness to that even here, where Ontario is the seventh jurisdiction in Canada to do so. So even in Canada we have not shown total support, nor does that agency have total support on an international basis for that convention for co-operation in the adoption of children.

I might say that over the years, I have had the honour of assisting a number of very small agencies - both in Montreal and in Ottawa, my home community now - individuals who made it their business to help provide homes for children who were facing possible death in some cases, starvation in other cases, and a very dim future. Yet the difficulties of making arrangements with the governments of the day in those countries made it extremely frustrating, extremely trying, very expensive and in fact required voluntary organizations to raise money to help provide support for travel for parents to visit. In some cases many parents couldn't visit; it had to be a third party. I'm going back a few years. Hopefully, this way of doing business, in terms of helping children to find a new home, new security, a new environment in which they can be loved to grow and develop, will be diminished significantly as we move along.

I will not carry this any further, except to reiterate that the Liberal Party supports this. We recommended this more than a year ago. Given that statement, I will sit down.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Klees: I just want to comment very briefly on the remarks by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I have to say that it's regrettable that in the debate on this bill he allowed himself to be dragged into the gutter of partisan politics. Speaker, you will know that members on both sides of this House supported this bill. I agree. I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree that we would have been much better to have brought this legislation forward much earlier. I advocated that very strongly, as did many members of our government caucus.

The member should know that there are realities in this House, in terms of business being conducted, that preclude a piece of legislation being advanced as often or as quickly as we would like. To use the deferral and to suggest that this government does not care about those families or did not have heart, as he put it, for those families is unconscionable. I as a member take exception to that. We as a government take exception to that suggestion.

I believe the people in this province know full well that the intention of this government was and is and will continue to be in support of the adoption process. This legislation will ensure that this will be a smooth process from this point on, it will be a credible process, it will not only support adoptive parents but will support children who are brought into this country. We look forward to this bill being implemented in this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased that the members who spoke were prepared to outline their views on this important subject. The member for Ottawa Centre was vociferous in bringing forward his support for provisions of a bill that was really the work of Joe Cordiano, the Liberal MPP for Lawrence, and others in the opposition who have tried to have a bill of this kind passed in the last few years.

My worry would be that if any of the children who were adopted from overseas were to come to St Catharines and had a kidney problem, they would not have the Hotel Dieu Hospital available to them. I worry about that, because I like the bill. I think the bill is good. I think there's a consensus on the bill that Joe Cordiano had the idea for. But my worry would be that were they to come to St Catharines, if the Hotel Dieu Hospital were to be closed, those who came to this country, who were adopted, would not have the opportunity to take advantage of some very good services which are available. For instance, they have the oncology clinic, as you know; they have palliative care there. Related to children, they have diabetic education available at Hotel Dieu Hospital. Some children may have autism; they have an autism program at that hospital. A wide variety of services are delivered in a very compassionate way.

If they were to come to St Catharines and wanted to go to Merritton High School, it might well be closed as a result of the policies of the Harris government. They have English as a second language taught at that school.

I thought the comments of the members were excellent.

1930

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I listened very carefully to the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who pointed out that they would be supporting Bill 72 because it's a very important bill that has been brought forward that all three political parties agree on. It's now up for debate and should be passed. There's no doubt that it probably could have been brought forward earlier, as some members have pointed out. You have a government that is spending so much time closing hospitals and threatening to close schools and a lot of things that are happening out there, in order to generate enough money to give a tax break to the wealthiest people.

I listened on second reading debate to my good friend Bud Wildman. The member for Algoma was very eloquent in his presentation on how his family has been helped to extend itself by bringing a child over from another country and adding to his family. I listened very carefully to what he was saying and how proud he was. This is a bill that all three parties can work on together and make sure it is passed. We should be working on doing a lot of other things for the betterment of the province, as is done in Bill 72, where Ontario is recognized around the world as being in favour of adoption from other countries in implementing this bill.

I look forward to supporting this piece of legislation when the vote comes up, and to making sure it gets third reading and royal assent in a very short period of time.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am also pleased to support this bill. I want to commend the members for Ottawa Centre and Windsor-Walkerville and also Joe Cordiano, who had the foresight to bring his bill forward. I can't understand why it took so long for the government to act on this. It could have been done over a year ago.

I have to say a little about some of the things that are happening in health care, with the VON on strike and the hospital closing in our area. As my colleague from St Catharines said, Hotel Dieu is being closed. Anyway, I am pleased to support this bill. It will be great for young people who will make Ontario their home.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Ottawa Centre like to wrap up?

Mr Patten: Simply to say thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate the comments of the member for York-Mackenzie, and I'm sorry -

Mr Bradley: You appreciate them?

Mr Patten: I appreciate them in a sense; that doesn't mean I agree with them.

I would point out to him that my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville has been deeply involved in this issue for some time, and I believe as an expression of his frustration, explained quite clearly and in no uncertain terms his disappointment that we haven't been able to deal with this bill previously. I also want to thank my NDP colleague the member for Cochrane North.

I also thank the member for St Catharines for pointing out something that is quite important. When we encourage that children be adopted - and of course that is a larger and bigger need and there are more and more parents who are searching for the opportunity to adopt in this province - my friend points out the importance of having adequate services. He's worried about the hospital in his community, and rightfully so. Hotel Dieu would serve people of all ages, especially children. That would be important. Then the member for St Catharines is worried whether a school called Merritton High will still exist when some of these children may be interested in going to school.

There are many things that one can point out on some of these, but in the final analysis I am happy to say that we look forward to the vote to make sure that this piece of legislation passes.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record this evening and, first of all, to express my concern at some of the partisan bickering this evening between the government party and the official opposition on this bill. I don't think that's necessary. When you do something right and good, as we are doing in this instance, there's enough credit to go around for everybody, and I think everybody ought to be thanked for the contributions they have made and that they make. Hopefully at the end of the day, when we all co-operate in this way on something that is worth supporting, lots of people will benefit and our world will be a better place for all of us to live in and to call our home.

The member for Lawrence, from the official opposition party, introduced a bill that got us on the way to what we have in front of us tonight. He ought to be commended for taking the initiative and having the foresight to do that, which I think then spurred the government to actually begin to take some action and bring forth a bill such as we have before us this evening that goes further than the bill proposed by the member for Lawrence, and applies the conventions agreed to in the Hague but includes a lot more countries, so that the situation becomes more available to a lot more people.

I want to speak tonight not particularly on the bill, because I think a lot of people have, and explained the reasons for it and some of the problems that now exist while we don't have the legislation in place, and why it is so important in Ontario today, with so many families out there who want to adopt children from other countries and so many children in other countries who are looking for the kinds of homes that can be provided for them here in Ontario.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the need for the government of the day to make sure, once we have this bill in place, that there are enough resources, that the people who work with the families who want to adopt have the time to do the checks and balances that need to be done and that the resources are in place to support that, so we're not setting up something that is going to create a huge bottleneck that at the end of the day will frustrate people more than help them.

I guess it's important that we put on the record tonight, and that hopefully we hear from the government in the time they have to respond and perhaps speak again, a commitment to having in place enough resources to make sure this bill plays out the way we all, in our optimism, hope and suggest that it might and that it could.

I have to say that the track record of the government to date in making sure that resources are in place for this kind of endeavour is not good. This is an opportunity for them to put their money where their mouth is and do something that will be helpful and that will not cause any further delay.

1940

I also want to comment on the fact that this bill puts in place - and, I think rightfully, challenges people involved in a very important process in this province that is international in scope - some regulation that will protect children in particular. That's something we need always to keep our eye on as we do this kind of thing.

To listen to folks today out there in Ontario and across Canada, and in particular to listen sometimes to members of the government, and I don't say this to be overly critical, but I think it's important to say it, you would think that regulation, by its very nature, was a bad or negative thing that was something put in place by government simply in an effort to intervene in the everyday life of ordinary citizens, to make life more difficult, to give them another hoop to jump through.

Around this place, we often hear regulation referred to as red tape, as if it were something to bind somebody up, to stop a process from happening, to get in the way of progress, but I don't think there is anybody who has seen this bill or understands this bill who doesn't know that regulation in this instance is put in place to protect the children who are to be adopted and come to our country to have a new home. In that respect, I just want to quote from Hansard, a small piece from the speech that my friend and colleague the member for Algoma put on the record back on November 4. He says:

"I think the reason most members of the House will support this legislation is because it is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that responds to a perceived and important need of a certain segment of the population. It makes it possible for children who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to grow up in a loving family relationship, an opportunity that many of their other friends and relatives in their own countries probably will envy a great deal. The reason we will all support it is, I hope, because all of us care about the children, want to protect them and care about the families who want to adopt them."

That's why we're doing this. That's why we're putting these regulations in place, because we care about the children and we want to protect them and the families that will adopt them. So we do a good thing by putting regulation in place. The only proviso here, as I said a few minutes ago, is that we make sure we have the resources in place to guarantee that those regulations don't simply become another bottleneck or that they do not, at the end of the day, become simply more red tape.

The other thing I want to speak about for a few minutes in considering this bill tonight is the responsibility that we have as a province to make sure that the children we bring in have provided for them and present to them all the opportunity possible to participate fully in the society that they've now joined and to live up to the potential that we all think they have and that they are able to contribute in that very positive, creative and exciting way to make their lives and the lives of the families they now belong to and the life of the community they live in and the province of Ontario that much richer because they're here.

I think it behooves us, then, to make sure that we continue to build on a tradition in Ontario of publicly funded and publicly accessible health care systems, education systems and social programs that support people and help them when they find themselves in difficulty, as we all find ourselves from time to time as we struggle through life and some of the challenges that seem so huge and daunting at times; that we continue to build an Ontario that is socially responsible, that is of a collective, communal nature that supports one another; and that not only do we focus on the individual and individual effort but also on the contribution that we all make to the whole.

These children we bring in, whom we go and adopt and make part of our community, I think it's important to know and to realize and to understand that when a family adopts a child from another country and brings the child back to their home and their community, that little person becomes part of a broader community, and that it's not simply an individual or a family thing but a communal thing, and we all have a responsibility to make sure that they have a bright, healthful and successful future.

We do that by, together, contributing to a pot that allows for the best in education for everybody who claims citizenship in Ontario. We do that by making sure that we have the best of health care systems and programs available at no cost and accessible when you need them. We do that by making sure that we have in place social supports for all of us, and for them in particular when at some time or other they might be challenged.

I remember not so long ago speaking with a former friend from university, who chose as her life work to go and work in less developed parts of the world, doing some really exciting and interesting things of a group development nature, where she would bring people together around particular challenges and together they would look at the difficulties they confronted and come up with ideas that would help them overcome those particular challenges.

I asked her, short of going to where she is and joining her in that work, what I could do that would be most helpful to the aspirations of the people she spent so much time with. Her comment was - actually at the time I wasn't quite sure exactly what she meant, but now I am, as I've lived out my life and become a father of four children in Ontario and have experienced all the anxieties that brings with it as you look forward to trying to provide for them all of the things you want to provide for children, how difficult that can be and how anxious you can become in quiet moments as you think about whether you can actually do that or not, or you ask yourself the questions: "What happens if I become sick? What happens if I'm not able to achieve? What happens if all of a sudden one day I'm in a profession that has been good to me, that I've been good to, that I've worked at for 10 or 15 years, and that job is gone? Through no fault of my own I don't have a job any more and I have to look elsewhere for a job and my family has become integrated into the community in which we have lived and we have to uproot and move. How would I deal with that? How would I respond to that? How would I perform under those circumstances?"

What she said to me was: "Tony, just make sure that all the things that we together in Ontario and Canada have fought for, have worked for, have built over a long period of time, our education system, our health care system, our social safety net, our infrastructure, all the things we do to make sure that each one of us has what we need when we most need it, make sure that we don't lose that, that we don't let that slip through our fingers, that we don't, through negligence or otherwise, allow that to become less of a reality for us in places like Ontario and Canada. Those of us who live and work in underdeveloped countries see Canada and Ontario as a benchmark that we look forward to one day achieving. But if your standards drop, then our standards drop as well."

As I thought about this piece of legislation tonight and I tried to imagine what we could do, as well as passing this piece of legislation, to make sure that those folks we've gone out to bring into Ontario have all that we hope will be necessary for them to be contributing, fruitful and successful citizens in our province and country, those are the things I think we have to be very careful that we don't lose, that we continue to work to improve and to make even more accessible, to make better so that we continue to be that country in the world that the United Nations and other organizations point to as the place that so many others would love to come to live in and to call home.

1950

I think it's important to build that context, to talk about that and to make sure that everybody involved in the bringing to reality of our participation in this Hague convention understands that's what we're offering these children. To not deliver on that promise would be, I think, morally and ethically wrong, not only for the children we bring in from other countries and adopt to make part of our home, but for the children we already have here, born into families or adopted into families in Ontario and Canada, to make sure they have a standard of living that speaks of dignity and the quality of life that we know in Ontario and Canada we can afford to give to all citizens because we have lots of money in this country and in this province.

For any young person, for any child in Ontario today to go to bed hungry at night or to not have enough to clothe themselves or be clothed, to not be able to participate in the education system in a way that speaks of learning, is not only not in keeping with the best traditions of Ontario and Canada but is also morally and ethically neglectful of those of us who have positions of leadership or who happen to have found ourselves fortunately in a position where we have enough to provide for our own.

We also have a responsibility to make sure others have the same and, if we don't do that, then I think we fall down when it comes to our responsibility and the challenge that is presented to us as we enter into the Hague convention in this very meaningful, positive and, I think, appropriate way.

The other thing, and the last thing that I'm going to speak about this evening as I put a few thoughts on the record re this bill, is my disappointment that this bill isn't somewhat more comprehensive, that it didn't include in it some of the provisions that some of us, such as the member for Riverdale, the member for Ottawa West and others, in this place over a few years have thought would be in keeping with the thinking that's around today and certainly reflected in legislation that we find now in other jurisdictions, both around the world and in Canada, re the question of adoption and the understanding that's evolving that people who are adopted should have the same right as everybody else, access to information.

I think you'll find that as we work our way through some of the challenges that will present as we open ourselves as a jurisdiction to adoption around the world, the people we bring in will at some point want to know who they are, what their history is, what their culture is, more about their religion, more about their family, issues of health and health care and the so many things that we who have not been adopted in Ontario today take so much for granted.

It's a little bit unfortunate that we weren't a bit more wholehearted in the legislation that we consider here tonight, that we've considered over a number of weeks now, to have included that in this legislation. However, we'll have an opportunity, and I say this particularly to the members of the government because you will play a major role in making sure that we move forward, that we actually evolve in a progressive and hopeful way for those who are in the adoption community, in that circle of people involved in adoption in this province, who have come together over a period of time now to come up with some things that they think should be done by way of new regulation and new legislation that would make their life much simpler and easier and would help them get on with some of the things that they have up until this point not been able to get on with primarily because they lack access to information.

If you're looking at human rights conventions, there's nothing more important when it comes to human rights for all people, I would think, than access to information about who you are, about where you come from, so that you might make decisions that reflect that as you get on with your life. Next Thursday morning in this place, we will have a chance to debate a bill brought forward by the member for Riverdale that will speak to that. I suggest that as many of you have expressed support for the legislation that we have in front of us here tonight in a very positive, constructive and, I say, courageous way, you do the same thing next Thursday morning, that you take that quantum leap, that some of you who are having reservations take a deep breath and step out in all courage and say yes to the adoption community in this province, say yes to their aspirations, their hopes, their dreams of one day soon having the same access that we who are not part of that have to the information they need so that they may make the connections that will help them become the fuller human beings they hope to become. They will then be able to understand what it is they belong to and who it is they belong to and what their place is in the community that we all call home, Ontario and Canada.

In saying yes to this piece of legislation personally and on behalf of my caucus, I would ask the official opposition, the Liberal caucus, to say yes on Thursday morning to the bill that will be brought forward by our colleague the member for Riverdale. I would ask the government members to say yes with me to this bill Thursday morning, be here to participate in the debate, to listen to the information that will be put in front of you, and to say yes then as well because that will be a continuation of the very important, progressive and hopeful legislation that we consider and that we will hopefully pass at some point here this evening and make it the order of the day where the law concerns adoption in this province as part of the wonderful country of Canada.

That's probably about all I have to put on the record tonight. I've enjoyed the opportunity to speak, however briefly, on this. I want to thank others who have participated and suggest that it's nice every now and again in this place to have something that we all agree on, that we can all say yes to, that we all know helps this province evolve and move forward in a very important effort of family and community. I will be supporting this bill and I hope that the government will be as generous in providing the resources that will be necessary to make sure that it is implementable as they have been in supporting it as well.

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie has just given an excellent presentation on Bill 72, but I don't believe we have a quorum in this place for the further debates that might take place.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Questions and comments?

Mr Klees has moved third reading of Bill 72. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

2000

SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL

Mr Klees moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers / Projet de loi 76, Loi créant l'Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des techniciens en travail social de l'Ontario.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to participate in the second reading of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act.

This proposed legislation is an important addition to the social policy framework of this province. It will grant formal recognition to professions that are critical to the delivery of a variety of human service programs, and it will ensure public safety and quality services.

Social workers and social service workers play critical roles in the delivery of a wide range of important services in the social, health, educational and correctional services sectors in this province. Thousands of vulnerable adults and children receive services from social workers and social service workers every year in this province. This is important and sensitive work with far-reaching consequences for individuals, for families and for our society.

Despite the important contribution of these professions to Ontario, social workers and social service workers do not currently enjoy formal recognition. In the absence of that recognition, neither this government nor the public can be assured that the services provided by members of the profession are in fact of the highest ethical and quality standards. In fact, it's possible today for an individual to hang up his or her shingle as a social worker or social service worker and set up shop providing counselling to people about sensitive personal issues. Such a person may be eminently qualified and provide valuable and important service, or he or she may not. The fact is that the public has no way of finding out.

We felt this was unacceptable. The work done by social workers and social service workers involves much more than just common sense. These professions are based on a body of expert knowledge that has been built up over many years, although I might say that it certainly does include a great deal of common sense. Clients need to know that the practitioner they are dealing with is fully qualified in that body of knowledge and is entirely familiar with professional techniques and practices.

Until now, Ontario has been the only province in Canada not to have legislation covering the social work profession. As I indicated at first reading, the proposed Social Work and Social Service Work Act fills a void that has existed in Ontario for so many years. By creating a regulatory college for social workers and social service workers, Bill 76 will achieve two key objectives. First, it will put in place the safeguards necessary to ensure public safety and high quality standards on the part of the practitioners; and second, it will extend formal recognition to these important professions.

The proposal to designate two groups within this legislation, social service workers as well as social workers, is particularly important. The inclusion of social service workers, in addition to social workers, puts Ontario at the forefront in comparison to other Canadian jurisdictions. Social service workers are not currently regulated anywhere in Canada. Their inclusion in this legislation recognizes and validates the important contribution of social service workers. Their inclusion will expand significantly the number of practitioners subject to the college's code of ethics and standards of practice. This can only augur well for the consumer in this province.

At present, the existing Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, which is voluntary, has approximately 3,000 members. In addition, the current Ontario Social Service Workers Association, which is not a regulatory body, has roughly 1,000 members. By comparison, it is estimated that when it is up and operating, the proposed college will have a potential membership of some 10,000 social workers and 10,000 social service workers.

I'd like to describe for members how this legislation would achieve the objectives of creating formal recognition and supporting higher standards of both qualifications and practice within the profession.

Bill 76 proposes the establishment of a College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers as a self-funding and self-governing corporation. The proposed college would regulate the two professional groups and govern their members in accordance with the act. The college would be governed by a council of 21 members. A board of 21 members would allow the profession to provide for both geographical and sectoral representation, as well as ensure significant public input to the college's deliberations.

The specific responsibilities of the college are detailed in the legislation in four key areas: first, setting and enforcing membership qualifications; second, maintaining a publicly accessible membership register; third, establishing and enforcing professional and ethical standards; and fourth, promoting high standards and quality assurance in the profession through approved education programs for ongoing professional development and improvement.

I'd like to address each of these four responsibilities in turn, and explain how they will be carried out by the proposed college. A key function of the college would be the establishment and maintenance of membership qualifications. College membership would be required for any person in Ontario who wishes to use the titles "social worker" or "social service worker," "registered social worker" or "registered social service worker," or their French-language equivalents.

Those eligible to be considered for membership in the college include two broad groups: first, anyone with a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree in social work and/or a diploma in social service work prescribed in regulations, or equivalent programs; and second, practitioners who do not have these qualifications but possess a combination of related academic credentials and experience considered substantially equivalent by the college and prescribed in regulations.

I would like to assure members that there is no intention that the proposed college would erect barriers to membership for social workers or social service workers trained in other provinces and territories within Canada. Likewise, we intend no barriers to people who are trained outside Canada. The current voluntary Ontario College of Certified Social Workers is already working closely with federal and provincial government representatives and other provincial social worker regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with the Agreement on Internal Trade. This agreement promotes interprovincial mobility among professional groups and supports their ability to work throughout the country. This important work will continue under the new college. Similarly, the college would determine which international social work and social service work educational programs needed standards of qualifications so that graduates of those programs would be eligible for college membership.

2010

An important function of the college will be to maintain a publicly accessible register of all members. It would include such information as the type of certificate held by each member, terms and conditions of certification and details of revocation, cancellation or suspension of membership.

The establishment and enforcement of professional and ethical standards would be a key function of the college based on a specific definition of professional misconduct that will be developed by the college and form part of its regulations.

Bill 76 creates a number of important obligations to report unprofessional behaviour to the college. For example, employers would be required to report if they terminate a member for reasons of incompetence, incapacity or professional misconduct. Employers of college members and members themselves would be required to report the conviction of members of an offence under the Criminal Code involving sexual misconduct. Members of the college would be required to report if they have reasonable grounds to believe that another member has sexually abused a client.

Because public protection is a key purpose of this legislation, an effective and transparent complaints process is absolutely essential. Any citizen would be able to make a complaint to the college, which would investigate and consider the appropriate course of action.

The proposed procedures for investigation are in line with similar registration legislation such as the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The maintenance of quality assurance for the profession is a critical function of the proposed college. This would be achieved through the college's registration and complaints process and through the ongoing establishment of educational standards.

The college would determine the educational programs necessary to meet designated standards. This will ensure proper registration standards are maintained as well as establishing guidelines for the ongoing training and education of college members.

I would like to assure members that we have consulted broadly and extensively in the development and drafting of Bill 76. All three existing representative bodies of the two professions - the Ontario Association of Social Workers, the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers and the Ontario Social Service Workers Association - strongly support the thrust of this proposed legislation.

There is also strong support from elsewhere in the education field. From those involved in educating social workers and social service workers, the Ontario committee of deans and directors of schools of social work, the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and the Social Services Education Association of Ontario have all been consulted and support the objectives of this proposed legislation.

I believe it's a mark of the maturity of the social work and social service work profession that they agree with this government on the need for professional recognition and better protection of the public. They welcome the professional accountability this proposed legislation will bring.

Members of both associations, as well as the existing voluntary college, have been persistent in advocating this move to successive governments over many years. They have worked positively and constructively with us in developing this legislation. I want to extend the thanks of the ministry and of this government to the members of the many groups involved in these professions for their assistance and support, and for their commitment to improving their profession and public services in Ontario. This legislation would not have been possible without their support.

Spokespersons for both social workers and social service workers have spoken out in favour of Bill 76 since its introduction. For example, Dan Andreae, who is president of the Ontario Association of Social Workers said, "The profession has been working for 15 years to see this day. It truly represents a win-win situation for both the profession and the public by strengthening professional standards and accountability that would benefit citizens across Ontario."

There is strong support for our proposal to include social service workers in the college. Kevin Kennedy, speaking on behalf of the Ontario Social Service Workers Association, said the following: "For years our association has been supportive of social work legislation that includes social service workers. We are extremely gratified with the solution this ministry has developed and look forward to participating in the process of creating the new College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers."

Before I close today, I would like to comment on the relevance of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act to the step-by-step reforms we're making to Ontario's child protection system.

The legislation we're considering today completely supports the direction of our child protection reforms. Self-regulating status for social workers and social service workers will play an important role in helping raise the skills of child protection workers. It will help ensure that vulnerable children receive the best possible care in this province.

This government is proud of the reforms and innovations we're bringing to the social policy framework in Ontario. The proposed College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers would support quality assurance and professional excellence within this profession. It would provide assurance to clients, to employers and to the general public that members of this important profession are accountable for the services they provide.

This bill is part of a broader series of initiatives this government has introduced to improve the effectiveness of Ontario's social and community services system and to protect and assist vulnerable people throughout the province. This proposed legislation is therefore in the interests of members of the profession, those they serve and the people of Ontario.

We look forward to this legislation receiving approval from all members of this House. We anticipate, as we did in the previous legislation that we considered this evening, that there would be broad support from all parties and that we can move the passage of this bill along very quickly so that we can get this framework into position in this province.

I welcome the debate from other members on this proposed legislation. I look forward to the comments from members of the opposition parties and I'm sure, as we continue to discuss the implications of this legislation, that at the end of the day the people of Ontario will benefit significantly from this initiative.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Certainly it's long overdue. I understand that for 15 years the different social services and social worker organizations in the province have been clamouring for this college, so I'd like to congratulate the government for actually setting up this college at this time, or at least bringing this bill forward.

There are a number of things, however, that the bill does not do that the social work profession has been asking for as well. It doesn't, for example, propose to qualify social work as a regulated health profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Twenty-three other professional groups do come under that act and this is an organization that does not. I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant's comments as to why it was felt that this should not be a regulated health profession under the Health Professions Act.

The bill also doesn't include the scope of practice which defines the parameters of social work and social service work practice. As we know, social workers overlap into many other professional fields. The scope of practice would not be exclusive to all social workers. I'm very interested in the comments that the parliamentary assistant may have in that area as well.

It's a step in the right direction. It's certainly something this province needs. In the years to come, with all the cutbacks in social services in general, we will probably need more social workers in this province rather than fewer because of all the social havoc that is being wreaked by this government. But perhaps as a starter the parliamentary assistant could answer the question as to why this is not a regulated profession within the Regulated Health Professions Act.

2020

The Speaker: Questions and comments, member for Sault Ste Marie. Are you in your seat?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Yes, they moved me up one bench. Perhaps it's a bit different-looking here tonight.

Mr Gerretsen: One more to go, Tony.

Mr Martin: I'm happy as well that this piece of legislation is before us now and that we get a chance to have the debate and hopefully take it through the process of second reading and then out to committee so that people can come and present their support, and ask questions and raise concerns. I know all of that is out there, where it concerns this piece of legislation.

It's something I've heard a lot about over the nine or so years that I've been in this place. I remember, when we were the government, having groups of professional social workers show up in my office to explain to me why it was absolutely essential that we have regulation around the profession of social work. As a matter of fact, I remember my very good friend in Sault Ste Marie, Peter McGregor, who has since passed away, a very wonderful man who contributed in some very exciting and creative ways to the quality of life of a lot of people in the city of Sault Ste Marie.

Part of that professional social work organization invited me to a luncheon once so that they could present to me and have as many people as possible talk to me about the need for this regulation. I also know that a colleague of ours when we were government, Drummond White, a social worker in the Durham area, is very supportive of this legislation. As a matter of fact, when we were government he tabled a bill as a private member, that we weren't able to find the time to actually move through the system.

I'm anxious tonight to listen to the comments of members from both sides of the House. I know there are those out there who think it's a wonderful piece of legislation; there are others who will challenge it. Let's have the process; let's go through it.

The Speaker: Questions and comments, member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Thank you very much. I'm pleased -

Interjection: You missed Bert.

The Speaker: I missed Bert; actually, he was up first.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'll get the next one.

The Speaker: It's OK, member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: It's my pleasure to comment on the excellent speech made by the member for York-Mackenzie on Bill 76, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998. I think he did an excellent job in preparing his comments and commenting on the bill. What he said was that this will actually finally grant formal recognition to professions that are critical to the delivery of a variety of human service programs and that will ensure public safety and quality services.

I took notes as he was speaking, and he mentioned that social workers and social service workers play an important role in Ontario today in social, health, educational and correctional services right across the province. What he mentioned in his opening comments is very important: that anyone in Ontario can hang a shingle out in front of their property and say they're a social worker or a social service worker. What this bill will do is restrict that. It's a very important bill that will protect the children and all the people of Ontario by knowing there are certain requirements that people will have to adhere to in order to become a member of this college.

Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, is a very good piece of legislation. Again, I want to compliment the member for York-Mackenzie for an outstanding job on his speech.

Mr Bert Johnson: I wanted to comment on the speech by the member for York-Mackenzie. The man, you can tell, is a trained orator. He puts passion into his speech. Members of the York-Mackenzie riding must be extremely proud to have a member able to get up and express himself so clearly on a bill - Bill 76, I might remind you - that will establish the professional standards for care workers in this province. I sit along the backbench here of the Conservative caucus, and I'm extremely proud to sit in the same row as the member for York-Mackenzie.

In any case, I won't take up a whole lot of the House's time in giving my compliments, but I just thought at this time of night I wanted - there is one thing I did want to ask, if I could, because it's questions and comments, and that is if the west side of Yonge Street in Richmond Hill would be part of his riding. If it is, I wanted him to say hello and congratulations to Joy Terry. I just got back from delivering her 100th birthday greetings. She's a relative of our family, and I'm sure she's up listening to hear the member for York-Mackenzie respond.

The Speaker: I will note, for the member for Perth, a warbler is a type of bird that is not remarkable for its song.

Member for York-Mackenzie

Mr Klees: It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the compliments of the member for Perth. I want to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to Joy Terry. To the member, the west side of Yonge Street in Richmond Hill will in fact be part of my riding, the new riding of Oak Ridges, following the next election. I would hope that Joy Terry will be able to make it out to the polling booth as well. I'm certainly happy to accommodate some help to her if she needs it. Joy, I hope to see you out at the polling station.

I also want to thank the member for Scarborough and all the members for their comments regarding this bill. It is important. For over 30 years, this profession has been calling for some form of support to be demonstrated by successive governments, who have failed to step into the gap and provide this type of framework.

We're pleased to be bringing this legislation forward today for second reading. We look forward to the comments from members opposite as well, as they may well have some positive suggestions for us. We want this to be a framework of legislation that will work for this profession. We know it will be in the best interests of the people of Ontario who have need to access social services. We look forward to working with the profession.

This, by the way, will be a self-funding organization. This is not going to cost the taxpayer. We look forward to working with the profession. It will be in their interests; it will be in the public interest. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to seek agreement in deferring the lead this evening until later on.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Patten: Therefore, I shall speak within the 20-minute time frame.

2030

I'm pleased to speak on this particular bill to establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. I would venture to say that our Liberal caucus supports this bill. We believe some areas have been raised that may require some clarification, that we feel can be dealt with at committee, and that these can be resolved.

Having said that, there's no question that all of us on all sides of the House wish to recognize the historical and traditional roles that social workers and others in the social work field, I suppose euphemistically now called the social service workers, which encompasses a good many people who make their contributions.

I don't know where you begin in terms of acknowledging contributions, I suppose all the way back to volunteer days when people began to take care of their brethren and sisters in their community who were in need of support and help, and of course that graduated to organizations. Many of these organizations used to be religious organizations, voluntary organizations, and then more recently, probably from the turn of the century, we began to have social workers who were paid by institutions, voluntary organizations and then, latterly, governments that paid the fees of many of these organizations, I would say much to the dismay of some of those organizations today, because what we have inadvertently done is created a great many organizations dependent upon government.

It is my opinion, having spent 22 years full-time in the voluntary sector, notably with the YMCA in a variety of areas internationally and domestically in the social development field, that governments have tended to create some of the traditional organizations' aid dependency. I reiterate that many of these organizations today regret that and are trying to find ways to strengthen their own independence. I think that's laudable and important.

I don't want to stray from the bill at hand because I think it's important, but I thought I would at least add that context, that we're talking about a group of individuals who jealously guard their independence, and rightfully so. We do not want to see social workers or anyone working in the social field feeling bound by dictates or the finger of political intervention more and more in the ways in which someone should operate on a daily basis. It's very difficult, because we know from many social workers with the children's aid society, to speak of one organization, let alone social workers in many other organizations, the constant stress the social workers are under, especially these days when anything goes wrong and often it's, "Oh, it's the social worker's problem," when indeed we may all need to look in the mirror and say, maybe it's the kind of society, especially the urban society, we've created, which we should acknowledge we have a responsibility to help change.

We have a responsibility to foster stronger communities, stronger social accountabilities between and among neighbours and citizens who live in the community, so that everything does not fall on the professionals in our society. It's their problem to resolve problems when families cannot cope. I say this not only for social workers; I say this also for teachers and many others who care about their community and perform a service on behalf of individuals and families in our community.

This bill is a long time in coming. Some might say it has been at least 31 years since we talked of a bill to regulate the social work profession and it predates the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers. The Liberal caucus is particularly pleased that social service workers are recognized in this bill as well. We think this is particularly forward-thinking and precedent-setting. While a lot of concerns have been expressed along these lines, it's our opinion that this can only add to the esprit de corps in the workplace, that people, regardless of the particular function they have, will have some recognition of the value of their work and some opportunities to develop in their particular society or profession. I think this is a good move.

Others have criticized the need for this bill. I have some news clippings from various newspapers, some quotes from various people outside and inside the profession. Some have said that this is nothing but self-promotion and an attempt by some to enhance professional status. We do not concur with this assessment. We don't share this. We do have some words of friendly advice, suggestions, some considerations that we would like to offer.

But if a criticism is given of people who would like to enhance their professional status - it would seem to me that can be interpreted as wanting to develop the highest possible professional standards, be they standards of practice, standards of knowledge, standards of skill and hopefully standards of ethics and moral integrity. I would say that is a good thing, and I take it that truly is the motivation. There are other examples of societies that have been created that I'm sure the social work professionals would know of and perhaps look to as examples. It would be in the legal field, in the health field, in the educational field or what have you.

There are professional bodies that have been established, and it is important to observe that over time there may be areas which some of these bodies recognize they should capture or elements they should add to a full-fledged body to perform their duties, or that they perhaps should drop them. That can happen within a profession, and it does over time.

The example I would use is the bar association, a professional body that has quite stringent requirements and does annual reviews of the professional conduct of the members of the law society on an ad hoc basis and a random basis. Interestingly enough, it's my understanding that each year a number of individuals lose their status because they are not up to scratch.

However, I don't want to dwell on this aspect of the development of this body. There are some cautions I would like to share, and I do this not in any paternalistic manner; they're some we picked up along the way as we began to look at this bill, some suggestions we have made that were critical of the need for this bill. Therefore, it would seem to me that the body itself would want to take note of these points and consider them.

The first one is for the college not to get caught up unduly in professionalism, although that is important, at the expense of or by neglecting those on whose behalf they have traditionally advocated and served: the poor, the disabled, the sick, the disadvantaged, the elderly, families in crisis, those who do not have a voice, meaning children in particular, who are perhaps the greatest responsibility of social workers as we consider the range of their services. I do not mean that as a judgment that other areas are not important, because they are, but when we think of the investment we have and the importance of the growth and development and mental, physical and spiritual health of children, that they will be living for 60, 70, 80 or 90 years, the sensitivity and the importance of that role in working with children obviously is paramount. I know social workers share that view.

2040

Another issue is the area of annual fees, and some concerns have been raised about that. I would venture to say that indeed that issue is always raised in the creation of any new body. The fees, at least at the outset, tend to be reasonable, but it's important to watch over time the raising of annual fees, because of course this will have an important impact, especially on some of the social service workers, who are probably some of the lower-paid people, especially in relation to the importance of the work they perform, especially new graduates. They may just be graduating and have an OSAP grant to repay, which hopefully would not be too high, but for some students it would be considerable, equivalent to a small mortgage. So we offer that suggestion.

Social service workers have expressed concern that only those with social work degrees or diplomas will be included in the college, whereas many persons with other degrees, diplomas or experience are also working in the field. The college needs to consider creating the nature of its organization, some may say the bureaucracy. That is always a concern, that something is not unduly over-organized and over-bureaucratic, to the point where it becomes inefficient and has difficulty serving the people it's supposed to be serving.

Although some have said that the real benefits seem to be for the social workers in private practice, who I gather represent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20%, to give themselves status along with their professional colleagues, we also find taking place more and more out-servicing of middle management jobs, where we find social workers. More social workers are taking out liability insurance, which would suggest that the percentage of social workers in full- or part-time practice is feared to be on the increase. I suppose the statistics would bear that out.

The other concern is that the college move in the direction of truly being as inclusive as it possibly can be, without the worry or threat of watering down its practices and its definition of its area of work. It seems to me that the inclusiveness of a particular group is of vital importance. This has haunted our society, I fear, in a moral and spiritual manner. It is those who come from other countries or other jurisdictions who are not accepted within Ontario. We have to find expedient ways to deal with this, where it is not a professional barrier. Though many of us applaud our diverse and multicultural society, it is a crime, a shame and an embarrassment for our society to have so many professional people performing functions that have nothing to do with the field in which they were trained. I'm talking about people who have high professional training. This has to be one of the areas to which this college should pay some serious attention.

Having reiterated some criticisms of the bill that we're aware of and issued words of caution to the profession to ensure that they continue to be advocates for the people they work for, I want to emphasize that we're confident that they can and will be addressed. We see this bill as a very important first step. I think we all recognize that there are mechanisms, such as regulation or amendment, for provisions that prove not to work after the initial transition and that it will be dealt with as it is dealt with in most situations.

Three areas that should be addressed in the bill are the scope of practice, the ability to subpoena and external appeal mechanisms, as voiced by the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers. These could also be considered at the hearings, at which time amendments could be put forward before third reading.

This would be carving out the scope of practice. However, this may prove difficult, since counselling is not easy to define and is not a designated task unique only to social work. The overriding importance of the creation of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is to govern their practice in Ontario. Our message to the profession truly is, congratulations on this particular bill, assuming it will pass. From our point of view, we hope it does, and we will be supporting it. At the same time, we urge you not to forget to be the voice for the vulnerable and for those who do not have a voice. You have a long history of advocacy and practice in this province, and we need to keep hearing from you now more than ever. We need to help strengthen the independence by which you can continue to function and exercise your professionalism.

We're also aware that some of the government practices or policies have hurt some of the people you work with, its cuts to welfare, child protection services, education, health care and more. We hope you will continue to use your voice to point out where these deficits in services to human beings in need must be rectified. That's why it's so important that you maintain an independent voice.

We continue to remind the government about groups you encounter who are experiencing inequity and discrimination, groups who are excluded from the benefits of the broader community and groups who are caught in the widening of the gap between rich and poor, causing them dislocation and disconnection from the mainstream. We are sure you will honour and act on your roots and your history as you go forth. We, as the Liberal caucus, truly hope that the advent of this college will be another step in the creation of a body of people who have a long tradition of very important service, sometimes not acknowledged, sometimes feeling unappreciated, and this will be an important step in helping that profession to develop its fullest potential. The passage of this particular bill will make that kind of contribution.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his remarks. It is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight and speak on Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers in Ontario. I will have an opportunity later on this evening to join in the debate in a fuller capacity and talk about some of the issues the NDP caucus is still concerned about in Bill 76. Although we're generally supportive of the legislation, like the member for Ottawa Centre we do have some concerns, but we certainly would like, and have the ability tonight, to rise and thank the Ontario Association of Social Workers for their hard work in this matter.

2050

Of course, if there's one issue that all members of this House would concur in, it's that all parties are very concerned about public protection, especially around the most vulnerable people in society, the recipients of social services and social assistance in Ontario. I have had the opportunity to speak with several social workers, particularly in and around the regional municipality of Sudbury, which of course is where I pride myself on having been a municipal employee for some 15 years with the city of Sudbury. I have had the opportunity to work very closely with a lot of people at the regional municipality of Sudbury and have watched under this government the migration of social assistance and some of the concerns that social workers have around this government's changes. Although I believe that a lot of what is proposed in Bill 76 is good, there are some very fundamental issues that I believe we need full and public consultation on, and I welcome the chance tonight to rise and join in the debate.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I listened with great interest to the remarks from the member for Ottawa Centre on this most significant bill. I listened also to the remarks from the member for York-Mackenzie, who also spoke quite eloquently on the virtues of this bill. It's timely legislation, it seems to be gathering the support of both sides of this House, and I think that's a good sign for all of us in this chamber and for the citizens of Ontario generally. I commend the member for his remarks. I am grateful to hear that this bill has his support. I am pleased with that and I am also very pleased with the thoughtful and eloquent remarks that he delivered in support of the bill here this evening.

Mr Martin: I want to offer my congratulations to the member for Ottawa Centre for some very thoughtful comments on this bill. I think it's an important piece of work that we are dealing with here tonight. Certainly it will affect the lives of a lot of people out there across the province, most particularly the professional lives of people involved in social work.

As I said in my previous two-minute opportunity, there are a lot of people in the profession out there who want this, who want the regulation, who want the framework within which they work to be more defined. The bill is somewhat lacking in that it hasn't described the scope of practice. That has been brought to my attention by some of my friends in Sault Ste Marie who have spoken to me about this bill, and I think it's an important piece of any act to regulate a profession of this nature and will need to be looked at.

There are people out there who don't agree with this bill, who are challenging it, who say it's going to be too restrictive and it's not necessary in the world that we live in to regulate the profession of social work in this way. They'll be coming forward too to put on the table their thoughts and their concerns, and I think we need to be open to listening to what they have to say, because we all benefit from the contribution of others, particularly when it's presented in a well-thought-out and careful fashion. Certainly CUPE, as a group, have written to all of us to express their very deep and serious concern about this bill and how it may affect some of their members in the excellent work they do. We'll be listening, we'll be wanting to participate and we hope that this goes out to hearings.

Mr Klees: Just very briefly, I want to thank the member for his thoughtful comments and support for the legislation. I would just express my concern over the delay in bringing second reading of this legislation to completion this evening. I know the third party intends to continue the debate unless between now and the end of this evening we can convince them to agree to complete second reading so that we can get this important piece of legislation on to the next step. I encourage the members of the third party caucus to consider or perhaps reconsider their position on this so that we can at the end of this time of debate have second reading and complete that order of business so that we can move on with this.

The Speaker: Response? Member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Patten: I would like to acknowledge the comments from my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt, the member for York East, the member for Sault Ste Marie and the member for York-Mackenzie. It seems to me that we concur in our analysis of the bill, that essentially we are in accord - there may be some minor aspects that need to be rectified or addressed or at least debated further - but that this should go forth, and in the spirit of the goodwill of the members of the House, that such would be so. In that spirit, I simply say that I hope this will continue and that we will be able to have passage of second reading and move on to third reading.

The Speaker: Further debate? Member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Blain Morin: I have listened to the government and their approach on it. However, I would like to take the opportunity to have a few words on the bill. I believe it's incumbent upon us, especially with some of the concerns that we have about Bill 76 and some of the response that we have heard out there about certain shortcomings of Bill 76, and I'd like to enter into the debate tonight and bring forward some of those comments that are really important to the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury, as the member for Sudbury encourages.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): But tell us, are you in favour of Bill 18, Blain?

Mr Blain Morin: We're debating tonight the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, Bill 76. This bill establishes the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers in Ontario, and it's particularly good, and no one will argue the point that it's particularly good, to have qualified people serving the people of Ontario, especially in the social services field.

Trained people with academic qualifications is what Bill 76 refers to. It refers to setting up a college and it refers to having qualified people serve the community. In my experience as a municipal employee with the city of Sudbury, I have had the opportunity to talk with a lot of members of the social services department in and around the regional municipality of Sudbury, and one of the things I'm most impressed with is the professionalism and the academic achievement of a lot of the people who work there. In fact, all of the people who work there have ultimately gone through some sort of training and qualification in order to perform the duties and serve the public, especially around social services issues.

In talking with Wyman MacKinnon, who is an eligibility review officer and who works at the regional municipality of Sudbury, Wyman has talked about the three-year program that he took at Laurentian University and he talked about the challenges that face those social workers today as well as the challenges that now face -

Mr Bartolucci: Tell us, are you in favour of Bill 18?

Mr Blain Morin: The member wishes to debate Bill 18, but unfortunately people are here tonight to talk about Bill 76.

2100

If we look at the eligibility review officers, and when we start talking about the dedication and academic requirements of social services people, we'll find that a lot of the existing social services workers in Ontario have already accomplished an academic level. What we're concerned with is the way this government has approached issues around educational requirements, around Bill 55, the apprenticeship act that was jammed through by this government, which looked at skill sets of apprentices and talked about dividing those skill sets and about developing a bunch of unqualified people or half-qualified people in Ontario, and how that would deteriorate the skills of people serving the public and the public good. With Bill 76, we believe, as a party, that we need further consultation on some of the areas that I hope to highlight tonight in my presentation before the House.

We believe Bill 76 should go to committee. We believe it needs full consultation. We believe that this government has to allow it to go to full consultation throughout the province and not some of the stuff that we've seen beforehand, particularly around issues like the apprenticeship bill, Bill 55, that went to six cities in the province and yet really affects a large host of people, or Bill 99, which I know the members of the government don't like talking about. That was the workers' compensation reform, a reform that deals with 300,000 injured workers a year. All they say is, "Workers shouldn't be injured any more," and "Don't get hurt at work," and that's their answer to it. Those consultations didn't go throughout the province. The problem was, they only went to six cities in Ontario. The government committee that went out didn't really want to listen to the citizens of Ontario.

What we need here and what we're asking for - and I know the government side of the House is going to give us their assurance tonight and they're giving me the assurance now that they will have full and meaningful consultation throughout the province with the stakeholders on Bill 76. I know they want to talk to the stakeholders, number one, the people using the system, and the people who have to use the system and implement the system and deliver those services to the people of Ontario.

There's a large group of workers who have claimed that they really need to have a say in consultation around Bill 76. There are approximately 20,000 social service workers, through the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who are really concerned about some of the aspects of Bill 76. What they've asked tonight, and I know they've written letters to the minister, is for us to bring to the attention of the House some of their concerns around Bill 76 and why they really believe that it has to go to committee and why they believe it needs full and meaningful consultation with the stakeholders.

I know "stakeholder" is a Conservative word they like using. The stakeholders in Ontario, and we're talking the language now - and the member is spelling it for me and I thank him - must have a say in what's going on. Part of the stakeholders are the people who administer the system. If we admit 20,000 stakeholders and we haven't consulted with those 20,000 stakeholders, I believe we still have to, even though Bill 76 is a really good idea, go out and talk to the people who are applying the system and delivering the service to the public of Ontario.

I know the government will look and the government will say, "Do we really want to listen to the Canadian Union of Public Employees? It's those big union bosses again," but the 20,000 people who are involved in delivering that service through the Canadian union are not big union bosses. They're people with a lot of heart who want to deliver these services to the people of Ontario, like Wyman MacKinnon, like Debby Balen from the regional municipality of Sudbury, who take a great deal of pride in working with the public in delivering social assistance benefits to the people of Ontario. They take a great deal of pride in doing that, and I believe they need a say.

I know when you come to Sudbury with the committee hearings you'll want to hear from Wyman MacKinnon, who has been involved as an ERO for approximately 20 years and who knows all about the delivery of services and the importance of these services as well as the real importance of having services delivered to the public by qualified people.

The act speaks of quality standards to protect the public. Again, the committee should be out there talking with those stakeholders. We have to continue as government - it's our obligation, it's our duty - to go out and speak to the stakeholders of the system to find out. Part of the stakeholders in this system are the 20,000 people who want a say in this system, who want to talk about the qualifications. They want to talk about a lot of things, about caseload and how caseload is going to be a prevalent factor in this bill and how it affects some of the aspects of this bill.

I'd like to read to the House a letter from Anne Dubas, who is the president of local 79. She writes on December 4 to the Honourable Janet Ecker, MPP, the Minister of Community and Social Services:

"The Social Work and Social Service Work Act, Bill 76, has been introduced in the Legislature by your government. The bill sets out a new set of rules governing social workers and social service workers in Ontario. CUPE local 79 represents social service workers and social workers in the social services division and other areas in the city of Toronto. Thousands of these union members are signing petitions because of their concerns with aspects of the legislation."

She goes on and says:

"In order to make the issue clear to your government, we are requesting that this legislation be referred to a standing committee for public hearings. In this way, interested members of the public can make presentations and have their views known to politicians. In the past, this has proven to be a very democratic way of allowing the broader community to participate, and not just special interest groups. We believe the public has a right to be consulted on this important issue and we urge your government to conduct accessible," and that's very important, accessible, "province-wide hearings now that the bill has been introduced into the Legislature."

I agree with Ms Dubas on that matter.

Another person who has talked to me in depth about Bill 76 is a member who has been involved in working with social workers in the province of Ontario since approximately 1990 and that is Dennis Burke. Dennis Burke first got involved with the regional municipality of Sudbury in the social services department in about 1990. Again, he has problems with certain aspects of the bill.

The one thing that Dennis said that I found very interesting was that the government should be providing funds right away so the existing social workers in the system today can access the public properly and provide the essential services that they are supposed to be providing today. The funding is not there. What's happening at the regional municipality of Sudbury is there are approximately 5,500 active cases on the go. One would say, "Well, 5,000 cases aren't bad," but when we start looking at the ratio of social workers to the number of recipients, it works out to approximately 117 to 1.

I think it's important, when we talk about Bill 76, to bring to everyone's attention, and I know the government is interested in hearing this, one of the things that may derail Bill 76. If you're not funding the system now - and there are higher caseload ratios in the province of Ontario than 117 to 1 - what are you going to do when we start looking at discipline committees and those types of things? There's going to be real jeopardy put on social workers in Ontario.

2110

Let me go a little deeper. Whenever I've visited the regional municipality of Sudbury social services department, people are lined up and jammed - I believe they've moved to the eighth floor now - on to the eighth floor. They're jammed in there because of the case ratios of 117 to 1. They're jammed in there waiting for service.

Education is not going to cure the problem entirely. In fact, education may not clear that problem up at all because what we need is the flow of money so that we can hire more social workers. Those social workers, qualified, as we've said, under Bill 76, will be able to provide an adequate service so that when a recipient of social services comes in, they are going to be able to ask open questions to their social worker or their social worker assistant. They want to talk about benefits. They want to talk about eligibility. They want to talk about medical and what they're going to be covered for. We have to provide, as a government, the accessibility for those recipients to have access to social workers.

It's shameful when we start looking at the waiting list. I'm qualified to talk about the regional municipality of Sudbury because I've worked there. It's shameful when you go up and you look at the people jammed up on the eighth floor because we don't have the number of people we require to service clients. Bill 76 falls short there because it doesn't talk about adding more money into the equation. There's a real problem when you add Bill 76 and when you start looking at this, and I'll get into that in a second.

The number of assaults that take place is another issue, of course, because of the client ratio. As well, in the regional municipality of Sudbury, I was appalled when I visited and took a tour and I started seeing the security booths that they have to put up today.

Qualification and bringing people the college aren't going to take the place of the underfunding that's going on in the system today. We have to flow money to social workers so that they're able to do their jobs.

Mr Bartolucci: Blain, what's the answer?

Mr Blain Morin: Because of the unmanageable caseloads, in Sudbury 117 to 1 -

Mr Bartolucci: Blain, tell us about the answer.

Mr Blain Morin: The member for Sudbury wants the answer.

Mr Bartolucci: I want to know the answer.

Mr Blain Morin: If you listen, Mr Bartolucci, you'll hear it.

Mr Bartolucci: What does the NDP say?

Mr Blain Morin: It creates a double jeopardy and it creates a double jeopardy for employees. No one in the House refutes the fact that we want to protect the public. No one has a problem with providing better service to social services recipients, but the concern doesn't protect the employees.

It talks about a discipline committee and it talks about looking at professional misconduct as well as incompetency. The problem with that is when we start looking at the caseloads. The problem is when we start looking at some of the numbers in the unmanageable caseloads that I'm talking about, 117 to 1, will a client be able to walk up to the college and say, "We have an incompetent social worker here"? "Why?" "Well, they didn't respond to my request," when in fact the social worker didn't respond to the request because they're dealing with a 117-to-1 caseload? How do you service clients with that kind of insurmountable mountain or barrier before you?

When you talk to -

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Speaker: I don't think we have enough people in here to hear this member's wonderful speech tonight. Do we have a quorum?

The Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: Quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Blain Morin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying before we were interrupted for quorum call, we were talking about the unmanageable caseloads in and around the city of Sudbury and how within the regional municipality of Sudbury -

Interjection.

Mr Blain Morin: To the member across, in my riding of Nickel Belt, we're dealing with caseloads of 117 to 1. I thought that was a really higher number, and I know the member agrees that it's an astronomical number. I have to go back, because of the quorum call and not having the government members here to hear this important debate. We talked about the discipline committee, and that's where we are now. We talked about the issues surrounding professional misconduct. We talked about that misconduct and incompetency.

Nobody want to see an incompetent worker in the system, which is the reason for the bill itself: why we need competent people, why we need qualified people in the province of Ontario. However, what we're worried about is the effect that unmanageable caseloads may have on that when a client would come out and say, "The reason I'm not getting service about my medical benefits or about benefits in general is because of the fact that the worker is incompetent," when in fact the issue that would be before the committee would be an issue surrounding the fact that there are just too darn many caseloads in a 117-to-1 ratio.

One of the things that might take on this disciplinary factor and that is a question we have around Bill 76 is, what do we do around discipline when we have a worker who's just following the employer's direction; when the social services worker walks in and is instructed by the employer or is instructed by the supervisor to handle a case in a particular fashion? What do we do when that member is disciplined or brought before the disciplinary committee as a result of following the employer's directions?

We're really concerned because I know this issue was brought up with the minister and I know it is something in Bill 76 that has not really been thought through yet. That's one of the reasons the government side of the House is willing to bring this matter to committee so we can have full public consultation on this matter.

I know the members, especially the member for Oxford, are agreeing with me and saying that we want province-wide hearings on this matter because of the number of stakeholders involved.

2120

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Point of order, Mr Speaker: Could you send an invitation out to at least one Liberal to join us in the House.

The Speaker: That's not even close to a point of order. It's not even funny. Sit down.

Mr Blain Morin: That was an interesting point of order. As a rookie in the House, I'm glad you brought it up because now I do know it's not a point of order. But I do appreciate the member's help.

When we look especially at the disciplinary actions of the committee, where we are really concerned is when a supervisor or an employer is directing that social worker to take a specific action on a file that involves a recipient of social assistance and therefore is brought before the committee as a result of their actions. That's something about why we have the need for public consultation today. It raises concerns. As I said, we raised those concerns with the Minister of Community and Social Services. Of course, they hadn't considered that aspect of the legislation, but if we have those full and public consultations, I think groups such as CUPE and OPSEU will feel a lot better with the legislation, knowing that we've heard them out and knowing that the stakeholders in the system are now going to be listened to.

As I talked about the hearings going across the province -

Mr Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate that you've indicated we can't send an invitation for the Liberals to join us, but maybe -

The Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has the floor. I think it's important to allow the member for Nickel Belt to speak without these mindless points of order.

Mr Blain Morin: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. I know there's concern for the blue lights of the House not being here.

The bill does establish a college. When we start looking at the college, the college would have five standing committees, with at least one third of the membership from public appointees. That doesn't really seem, on the surface -

Mr Klees: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that we send a special invitation out to the Liberals to attend this evening.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to send a message out for the Liberals to attend this evening? Agreed? Agreed.

Now, who's going to send this invitation?

Mr Klees: Through the Speaker.

The Speaker: No, that's up to you, member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Klees: Is the Sergeant at Arms available?

Mr Galt: Oh, here comes one.

The Speaker: I don't know how you want to handle this.

Mr Klees: No, this is fine.

The Speaker: OK. Member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Blain Morin: Mr Speaker, they've told me of your power before, but I see it really works and it works very quickly. Thank you. Now if we could get democracy, if we can get hearings on this bill as quickly, we'll be doing well - province-wide consultation, of course.

As I was saying, the college would set up five standing committees, with at least one third of the membership from public appointees. I would like to hear some of the stakeholders and I would like to hear some of the discussion around the public appointees and who they would be, and certainly their take on the system and how the system affects them.

The five standing committees would be the executive committee, the registration appeals committee, the complaints committee, the discipline committee and of course the fitness to practice committee. As I said earlier in the debate, there's not a problem with setting up committees. There's not a problem with setting up standards. But where I was concerned was when I saw this government around Bill 55 and how they've taken standards away from trades such as electricians, where there will be one set of standards in the province if you're an electrician working in the construction field but another standard if you're an electrician working outside the construction field. I'm really concerned about that, because they've divided it up, and they've divided it into skill sets.

But I want to get back to Bill 76. I believe it is supportive and does offer some solid solutions. I'm in receipt of a letter from the Ontario Association of Social Workers - again, their response to Bill 76 has been most positive. They say that Bill 76 has been extremely positively received around the province, with many Ontarians looking forward to passage of legislation for public protection that will bring Ontario in line with the rest of Canada. How can you argue with that? It's not bad to set standards and it's not bad to be equivalent to the rest of Canada, especially around education. As the critic for post-secondary education, I know that we have lagged behind the other provinces when it comes to post-secondary, with all the money this government has taken out of post-secondary education.

Obviously I'm quite enthusiastic that they're not going to take money out of this service. What they want to do is bring Ontario in line with the rest of Canada, and I think that's a very positive step.

In an editorial in the Toronto Star on Monday, November 23, 1998, they talk about Bill 76: "...legislation to establish a self-governing regulatory college to oversee both social workers and social service workers."

They also indicate:

"Long overdue, the college will bring Ontario into line with other provinces, which have all recognized that these professionals can have as much of an effect on the well-being of Canadians as...doctors, nurses and psychologists who are all governed by professional colleges."

I don't believe there is anything wrong with bringing that level and that standard up when it's to the good of the public. But I am concerned that a major portion of the stakeholders in this bill, some 20,000 workers who have contacted my office, are saying that they're concerned because they believe some aspects of Bill 76 have gone unrecognized and need answers, and they want public consultation.

The article in the Toronto Star goes on to say:

"When Ontarians put themselves in the hands of a social worker or social service worker, they have as much right to expect that the person helping them is qualified and competent as they do when they go to a doctor."

Now you see my concern around caseloads, particularly when you start talking about caseloads of 117 to 1, and how that might influence the discipline committee. An employee could be declared incompetent because of their inability to keep up with the high caseload.

I know also - and people would want to debate this issue - that just like there may be incompetent social workers in the province, although I have never met one at the regional municipality of Sudbury, there may be incompetent supervisors and incompetent employers who want to downgrade and lower the social assistance rolls in Ontario to make them look good for their Conservative friends. What would happen is, they would put the push on one of these employees and they'd be intimidated, and the client would say they're incompetent. We have that problem.

I know the government may argue that. They would say, "We would never bring that forward to the college." However, there are regulatory manners in which we can deal with that today. We deal with incompetent employees through arbitration. There's a natural progression of discipline as it is, and a natural way of handling those arbitrations. Even though you have watered down the Employment Standards Act and attacked workers again, let's be careful that we're not attacking workers in this case, especially when they bring such a vital service to Ontario. People on social assistance need good service. Let's not put the onus squarely on the backs of the employees with Bill 76. As I said, and no one would argue, there are bad supervisors.

Interjection.

2130

Mr Blain Morin: We have an argument.

I think the majority of Ontarians would agree that there could be bad supervisors and bad employers. Because of that, let's make sure we're not going haphazardly into Bill 76. Let's make sure that protection is there and let's outline it. Let's talk to the social workers. Let's talk to all of them, the group of 20,000 from CUPE who have not yet come forward. We need province-wide committee hearings on this bill, because it's so important, although the framework is sound.

As I said, no one is going to argue that the public doesn't deserve qualified people to serve social assistance recipients in Ontario. But let's not hang it all on the social workers or employees. I have listened intently to the member for Hamilton Centre, who has talked and fought for workers' rights in Ontario, and I know that some members across the House say, "He gets loud." I guess you have to get loud. With everything you have taken away from working-class people in Ontario, somebody has to tell you what you're doing to them. Let's not do it to them with Bill 76.

I congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre for his efforts in fighting for the rights of working-class people in Ontario, especially around labour issues. I especially enjoyed the debate where he talked about Bill 99, and he went around Ontario listening about how this government shamefully wanted to destroy the ODP and how they wanted to destroy the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. I know, as an advocate for working people in Ontario, that he brought up the matter of Sarnia and what this government was neglecting because of its changes around Bill 99.

Looking at a couple of other concerns - I believe the member for Ottawa Centre talked a little about some other concerns with Bill 76. One issue he touched on, and I would like to go just a little further on it, was tuition and membership fees. I read from the text, and I thought this was very interesting: The college will likely be funded through membership fees, and of course these extra costs will be borne by individuals who in many cases are already underpaid. Because they're underpaid, if they need a component of training, it may be very difficult for some of them to afford to obtain it.

I was at Durham College and had the opportunity to talk with a lot of students in the province. Those students were particularly concerned about rising tuition fees in Ontario today. Students like Todd Bosak, for example, from Laurentian University, talked to me about rising tuition fees. He was telling me that students in Ontario, whether they be college students or university students, are graduating with average debt loads of $25,000. The problem with that debt load, especially if you're in the social services field, is, how do you get a start in life? If you want to qualify beforehand to become a social worker, and we put these criteria together, with the disadvantage and the monies the government has taken out of colleges and universities, some $400 million, that cost has to be borne by students. What students in Ontario are telling me today and telling our party, and telling all of you I'm sure because I know that you represent all of Ontario, that this House represents all of Ontario, regardless of whether they agree with the Conservative position, is that the debt loads for students are about $25,000. In fact I was talking with one student who told me that their debt load upon graduation from university was over $36,000. How do you get a jump and how do you go back in life after incurring a debt of that size? How do you start off?

We're concerned with the membership fee, especially in cases where social workers are underpaid. We have yet to know, will employers allow social workers time during work to go out and qualify for these jobs? How is it going to transpire? What is it going to look like?

I know that the fees and contribution requirements are going to have to be in place to maintain their qualifications and it will create undue hardship for social workers in Ontario. Some of them are concerned, and that's why a lot of them, as the president of CUPE, local 79, has said, have lined up to sign petitions against Bill 76. They're not against the framework of Bill 76, but I've highlighted a few of the concerns.

I guess I'm pleading with this government tonight. That's why were asking for province-wide consultation, none of this stuff you always do, where you announce the night before that you're going to go to six cities across the province and you're in and out so quickly we can't talk to you. I remember those days, when I was not a member of this House. I remember sitting up here and looking for democracy in this House around Bill 99. I remember that I just couldn't believe, sitting in the hearings in Sudbury where we thought we were going to get provincial consultation and all the stakeholders were going to have a say, seeing six days of hearings and the committee not even wanting to hear from members in my community of Sudbury and not wanting to hear from people in Garson and Falconbridge and Lively and Coniston and Chapleau.

I invite the members to come to metropolitan Wahnapitae, because you have to see northern Ontario and to recognize what not allowing democracy in this House is doing, especially in places like northern Ontario, where we have a problem with the vastness of northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is such a big place that it becomes hard to service.

I'd like to go over again the letter from Anne Dubas, the president of local 79. It's not that members of CUPE are totally opposed to this bill; they're opposed to the fact that they haven't had a say and that there hasn't been proper consultation by this government on Bill 76.

"The Social Work and Social Service Work Act, Bill 76, has been introduced in the Legislature.... The bill sets out a new set of rules governing social workers...." We started looking at 20,000 social workers who have not been consulted on the bill. That is a big hole in Ontario when we start looking at the number of people serviced by this system. We know there are approximately 293,601 cases in the system in November. That was a government statistic.

2140

Mr Bartolucci: Give or take one or two.

Mr Blain Morin: Give or take one or two. I'd like to go through a list of some of the concerns that people who haven't been consulted on this bill or who haven't had an opportunity to speak on this bill are coming up with.

"The legislation envisions social workers as hanging out their shingles without any regulation. We would argue that most social workers and social service workers are employees and not private practitioners." It goes back to the point I talked about, when we start talking about setting up disciplinary committees, and because you're working for the public sector, it goes back to the point where you have caseloads as high as 117 to 1. I don't know what the highest one is in the province.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Spend more money on that, instead of spending the money on the hush money.

Mr Blain Morin: They spend more money on the hush money. If they put that hush money into social workers, we wouldn't have caseloads, I bet you, of 117 to 1.

Mr Len Wood: They're spending $600,000.

Mr Blain Morin: That $600,000 can go a long way in reducing those caseloads I'm talking about. Is that really $600,000?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): And $40 million for ads.

Mr Blain Morin: And $40 million for ads. It's unbelievable.

Mr Bartolucci: What about Bill 18, Blain?

Mr Blain Morin: It would even help the member with Bill 18, he says.

Mr Bartolucci: Do you want to talk about Bill 18, Blain?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please.

Mr Blain Morin: I'm sorry, we want to talk about Nickel Belt? No, we don't want to talk about Nickel Belt tonight. That was third place in Nickel Belt. I know we're still a little sore about that. I believe the member for Sudbury is still a little bit upset with their third place finish, in Nickel Belt was it? Nickel Belt, yes. I remember. I was in that riding. We won that riding. I know they fell apart and I know he's still a little concerned about that.

Mr Len Wood: Who came third?

Mr Blain Morin: Who came third? The Liberal Party came third in the Nickel Belt by-election.

Mr Len Wood: The Conservatives came second.

Mr Blain Morin: The Conservatives came second, and you know what's really amazing is that the Conservatives really have never been strong in northern Ontario. It shows what happened with the Liberals and how they kind of fell apart in Nickel Belt, because they came third, and they were labelled first.

Mr Len Wood: That was a good poll.

Mr Blain Morin: A very good poll.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): You may want to leave the room again, guys.

Mr Blain Morin: Let's get on with Bill 76, because I know the member for Sudbury doesn't like talking about Nickel Belt.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): What about the $600,000 you're spending for your friend Al McLean over there, Noble? Just tell us a little bit more about that. That $600,000 will bring you guys down, believe me.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Kenora. Member for Perth, member for Kenora. Order, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Kenora. Member for Perth, come to order. OK, everybody, settle down.

Mr Miclash: Tell us a little more about the $600,000 for Al McLean.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kenora.

Mr Miclash: You know darn well, Noble, where all this is coming from. You know darn well.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. That's enough. Do you have a point of order, member for Sudbury?

Mr Bartolucci: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We're certainly talking about the $600,000 settlement.

Mr Miclash: You will never live it down.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kenora.

Mr Bartolucci: The member for Nickel Belt is rambling. I wonder, is there a quorum in the House?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please?

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt, go ahead.

Mr Blain Morin: As I was saying, as to some of the points that have been brought up by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, one of the concerns is that they don't believe there's been enough consultation with the social workers in the province around Bill 76.

"The legislation envisions social workers as hanging out their shingles without any regulation. We would argue that most social workers and social service workers are employees and not private practitioners. As employees, they have already had strong accountability from their employers and the legislation governing their agencies, and further, the criminal law and other legislation and civil law provide adequate protection to the public in rare circumstances where there are any problems."

That is a point of view and that is why we need province-wide hearings, so that can be debated and we can hear from those stakeholders in the system as to exactly what we need to do. Again, with Bill 76 we're not saying it's wrong; we're saying that any time you try to bring in legislation that provides quality service, it's a good idea, but I plead with this government and encourage you to look at province-wide hearings when we get to committee.

"There are further concerns that the members may face a double jeopardy, both discipline from existing mechanisms and through the new College of Social Workers." This would be a question: Who would be responsible for the costs of defending a person before the college? Again, when we talked to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that was something that they really hadn't thought about and there were concerns about that issue.

What we're saying is there's a need to go out to committee, there's a need to have province-wide hearings and there's a need to follow up with these people so that we can give them the appropriate answers to their questions.

Then we talk about social and service workers who rarely hold themselves out to the public as private practitioners. "They usually call themselves therapists or counsellors or state that they are religious counsellors. The legislation appears only to cover people who want to use that designation, and there's concern from some social workers that I bring forward, that we are concerned that the stated purpose of protecting the public will not be accomplished through this legislation.

"People who are now working in social services or social work have come to the field from a variety of backgrounds."

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kenora, I'm warning you.

Mr Len Wood: He's concerned about that hush money, $600,000.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, come to order. Member for Nickel Belt, try again.

Mr Blain Morin: We're almost done. People working in social work "have come to the field from a variety of backgrounds such as nursing and the field of social work has been enriched by this diversity." The Canadian Union of Public Employees is also concerned that "people working in immigrant services and other cultural groups may get excluded as a result of this legislation and the existing diversity in the field of social work could be lost through the setting of standard qualifications by the college."

These are legitimate concerns that I believe this House has an obligation to go out and seek consultation on, from people like Anne Dubas, president of CUPE, local 79, a very good person who represents social workers and social services divisions in areas of the city of Toronto and the entire greater Toronto service area.

We talked about my experiences working in Sudbury with some of these social services people at the regional municipality of Sudbury, and in particular people like Wyman MacKinnon, who has dedicated his life as a social worker, and another person is Debby Balen. It's very interesting to watch Debby. Debby is a very committed social worker at the regional municipality of Sudbury. For example, every time we see her, Debby is one of these people who doesn't want to stop and take coffee. She doesn't want to stop and get into office politics or anything to that effect. Why? Because she's committed to the clients in the field.

The clients in the field deserve those qualified people. There's no argument about that. I know at the regional municipality of Sudbury many of them are qualified and many of them have already gone through to a point where they have got the requirements that are dictated by the college.

2150

Nevertheless, we have to provide the ability for those social workers to go out and obtain that education. Part of the problem with obtaining that education is that they have to have access to those post-secondary colleges and universities. I believe one of the toughest things for the existing social workers today is the funding of membership fees and fees for membership around this legislation.

I believe we have to have a little bit of dialogue as to what those fees will be, because if we look at the big picture in Ontario and we start looking at the issues, a lot of social workers are not making $60,000 a year and they're not making $50,000 a year. In fact, a lot of them within the regional municipality of Sudbury were temporary workers, some of them making as little as $25,000 a year.

One of their concerns and one of the reasons they've signed petitions against this bill is that there hasn't been that open dialogue with this government. That open dialogue has not taken in the concerns of some 20,000 workers who work in the social services field in Ontario. The extra costs: We have to talk about those extra costs being borne by those individuals.

If you are a social worker making $25,000, my goodness, do you take time off to go and pick up the rest of the qualifications? What do you do? If I'm a social worker in northern Ontario and I'm working out of a satellite office in Chapleau, where do I pick up my education? Where do I go? One would argue that if I live in the greater Toronto area I could go pretty well anywhere. It's called distance disability. That's a good word for it. I thank the government for that word because it is a good word. There's an impairment for the people of the north because we don't have the ready access; we don't have that availability to go and get hands-on instruction at a community college.

If you live in Chapleau, if you live in Gogama or Foleyet or Whitefish -

Mr Bert Johnson: Chapleau's pro-business.

Mr Blain Morin: I said Chapleau. But if you go to Chapleau, for example, you will not be able to obtain and access the post-secondary education or these specialty courses. They're impaired. The government may argue, "Well, you can go on the Internet to get the requirements." Well, no, you can't because there are a lot of areas in my riding, like Shining Tree, like Westree, that don't have access and Bell does not have the technology put in there.

Mr Len Wood: All public lines.

Mr Blain Morin: They're all public lines. They're radio phones in a lot of cases. Because of it, these people aren't hooked on to cable TV. You have to see the diversification of the north and the vast distance to understand those issues and how tough it may be for people to get that required education and post-secondary education in the north.

No one argues with the fact that we want to provide better public service. No one argues with the fact around Bill 76 that we need qualified people.

Mr Klees: Let's get on with it.

Mr Blain Morin: We will get on with it; four minutes and we will be on with it.

What we need to do is maintain the quality services we've got. Part of the problem with the quality services is the way this government has ignored the piles of case ratios for social workers in this province. I was astounded and appalled. I talked with the member for Cochrane North and we couldn't believe 117 to 1. We couldn't believe it, and a lot higher in this province - 117 to 1. It's just a disgrace what's going on.

The Acting Speaker: Just a moment, member for Nickel Belt. Point of order, member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Klees: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: After hearing the member, let it be known to all men that Gerry Courtemanche is dearly missed.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of order. Member for Nickel Belt, go ahead.

Mr Blain Morin: There is an obligation to protect the public, but again, what we're saying is, take a look at the big picture. Let's make sure that we are not setting up discipline committees to set up employees who are simply taking direction from their employers, who are simply taking direction from a front-line supervisor, because when we look at social service agencies we know they have criteria, we know they have rules and regulations and we know that there are going to be problems.

We're not saying that the context of Bill 76 is all bad. We're saying there are some good things here. When you talk about quality service to the public, when you talk about qualified people and people with qualified academic requirements servicing those clients, there's nothing wrong with that standard. But let's make sure that we're not taking a large group of people who work in this field every day out of the loop or deeming them unqualified with this bill. I don't believe what they have passed on to us is all bad. I don't believe that asking for public consultation in province-wide committee hearings is bad; I believe it's beneficial. I believe that the people of Ontario, the stakeholders, the recipients, the CUPE workers, the OPSEU workers, those who work in the system every day, as well as the workers involved in passing on these services, should have their say. That's what CUPE is saying, and I don't believe that it's bad, I don't believe it's the wrong direction; I believe they're just asking you to slow down and take a look at what's going on.

Going back, I agree with the Ontario Association of Social Workers that we have to bring the standard up and that the standard in Ontario should be in line with the rest of Canada, but let's not take 20,000 workers or 30,000 workers and put them into a bind where there are a lot of problems. Let's not rush. Let's make sure -

Mr Klees: It's been 12 years.

Mr Blain Morin: You've had five years, I remind the member - and let's just bring it in line and hear what the stakeholders have to say, because 20,000 social workers in this province have not been consulted about how to make the system better. That's what they're saying.

Don't ram through redundant, draconian legislation again and go back, like Bill 79 and eight revisions, saying, "Here we go again, we're going to revise the revision." Let's not do it. Let's just have those consultations and those committee hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I listened intently to the member opposite, and I would just like to say a couple of things that I think are important for our viewers at home to know.

When I came to the Ministry of Health as the parliamentary assistant back in 1995, one of the first contingents that came in to see me was a group of social workers from many different spheres, I think from the public sector, from the private sector, who wanted us to move forward. They told me at that time that it had been some 15 years they had been lobbying governments to move forward on this. In fact, they talked about the concerns for public safety. That's why, when the member opposite was talking about how this was double jeopardy, I thought that this is a very strange thing for a member of the third party to be talking about, as they profess to be so concerned about the vulnerable, the children of society.

2200

We are concerned about these people. Anyone can hang out a shingle in Ontario right now. Anyone can say, "You can come to me and I'll work with you in a social worker role." We need to clarify this. We need to protect the people of Ontario. Social workers recognize it; the people who take the services from social workers recognize it. The member opposite is saying that CUPE employees and OPSEU employees are concerned about this. I don't believe that to be true; I believe that the CUPE workers and the OPSEU workers of Ontario are concerned about people's safety, they're concerned about protecting the most vulnerable in our society and they want us to move forward with this. After 15 years of lobbying all governments of all stripes, they want this to pass. We have letters that have been signed by the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers and the Ontario Association of Social Workers that prove that.

Mr Bartolucci: I listened intently to the comments of the member for Nickel Belt. I'm just a little concerned. First of all, he never worked for the regional municipality of Sudbury, he worked for the city of Sudbury, and I must say that I take exception to the nine times that he abused the workers at the regional municipality of Sudbury. I cannot understand for the life of me why he would challenge the integrity of the people from the regional municipality of Sudbury. If he wants to debate Bill 76, that's fine, but when he says that the administrators at the regional municipality are less than credible, when he says that the workers at the regional municipality are less than dedicated, I really have strong concerns about that. This is the guy who never associated himself with the people at the regional municipality of Sudbury, and now I have to tell you that this is a guy who, if he talked to the people, would find out just how hard they work.

Interjections.

Mr Bartolucci: You know what? They can babble and they can chant and make a noise, but the reality is that the member doesn't speak for the regional municipality of Sudbury social workers. They understand that they need the type of legislation that will improve their lot.

He has said that these people do not work hard. I take exception to that. I was a councillor for nine and a half years and I can tell you that these workers work very diligently. If he is going to debate the bill, I don't mind, but when he picks on the people from the regional municipality of Sudbury, I take great exception to that.

I don't care if he wants to name-drop. I don't care if he wants to threaten. I'm not interested in that. The reality is that we have to ensure that this happens.

Mr Christopherson: I was waiting for the moment when the member for Sudbury was going to promise a chicken in every pot, because what that was all about was Sudbury politics and it had absolutely nothing to do with the excellent speech by the member for Nickel Belt regarding Bill 76. I must say it's a little unseemly, given the way he's doing it. He usually has a lot more finesse and style when he approaches things, but maybe he's more scared than most people think.

I thought the member for Nickel Belt gave an excellent speech and covered a lot of the issues we are concerned about and I would think that a lot of members of this House are concerned about. One of the ways to ensure that we are getting things right is to listen. I know that doesn't come easily to the Harris government. We know from Bill 7, where you rammed through a brand-new Ontario Labour Relations Act without one minute of hearings, that you're not keen on listening to people in a democracy; when you rammed through Bill 31 with no public hearings, that changed in a major way the business of the construction sector in this province; when you rammed through Bill 36, which gave us a brand-new Election Act in terms of the laws that will define how the next election is run, and you didn't allow the public to have any say in that either.

I think it was quite appropriate that the member for Nickel Belt would take the time he did to point out that as a new member, the newest member of this Legislature, he wants to listen to what people have to say. He's asking you not to treat this bill the way you have other bills, and not treat the public with the disdain that you have in the past, and not treat democracy with the disdain that you have in the past, and give people an opportunity to have their say so that everyone in Ontario can participate in our democracy.

Mr Klees: The member for Nickel Belt really emphasized for us on this side of the House that Gerry Courtemanche would have been welcome here. I have to congratulate the member for Sudbury for his most passionate plea in defence of the hard-working people of the regional municipality of Sudbury. I can't imagine that the member for Nickel Belt would have taken the time that he did to focus on the negatives rather than talk about the positive aspects of the bill before us.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You just get to spend all that money up there in the by-election.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Klees: I just want to leave this thought with you: You had it in your hands this evening, members of the New Democratic Party, to give second reading and a vote to this bill to move it forward. You have chosen not to do that. You will have to answer to the social workers of this province for that responsibility.

Mr Christopherson: You want to sit over here and we'll sit over there and take responsibility.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr Klees: No, you're sitting right where you should be. The people of this province have given you that position in this Legislature. What you should have done as you sat over there - for 12 years these people have been lobbying your government, the previous government and this government to move this legislation forward. It is before us now. You now have the responsibility to say yes or no. You're saying no by the very fact that for the last hour we have heard a great deal of talk about union membership, about why this shouldn't go forward; we have heard very little -

Mr Len Wood: What about the Tories?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, come to order.

Mr Klees: - about the principles behind this legislation. You will have to answer for that.

Mr Len Wood: What about the government members? They wasted all night talking about nothing.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Klees: Move this bill forward for second reading, we plead with you.

Mr Blain Morin: I'm concerned with some of the comments I've heard because we are concerned about quality services in Ontario. Let me be very clear about that. What we are concerned with is workers, workers like Anne Dubas, who has said to us, "Hey, we've got some concerns about this bill." But this government doesn't want to hear the concerns about the bill.

We listened to the member for Sudbury, who is already in fine election form and says that I torpedo the members who work - and I've worked side by side with these people. Even though I was an employee from the city of Sudbury, I've known these people like Wyman MacKinnon, like Debby Balen. I'm impressed with their dedication to the field. I'm just saying let's take a look here, folks, and let's not take any of them out of work, because we don't know how Bill 76 is going to work.

Something you're a little shy on is listening to people who want to talk about democracy. The minister gets a letter from 20,000 members in Ontario and you say, "I'm sure we've consulted them." Come on. When we look at it, it's insulting to those 20,000 people from whom you don't even want to hear. Just like it's insulting when the member for Sudbury says, "Oh, you're twisting the words about the dedication of social workers." Hardly. I admire what they've done. Mr Bartolucci is talking about reading and everything else. I don't know where it comes from. We are impressed with the dedication of social workers in Ontario.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

2210

FUEL AND GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS ET LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Mr Sterling, on behalf of Mr Hodgson, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur les carburants et la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would like to share my time with the member for Northumberland. I believe this bill is fairly straightforward and hopefully we will not require a great deal of time on third reading debate as we had a fairly lengthy debate on second reading of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's interesting to have listened to some of the debate across the House here earlier this evening as they talked about doing different things, more righteous than now. It's interesting to look back at the last five years of the previous government. In their whole last year, the NDP government only sat here for five weeks. That's 20 days. Just imagine the number of bills that could have been passed, such as this one they were just discussing. It's a shame they couldn't have been here in the House carrying on the business of Ontario rather than not coming back.

Mr Wildman, for example, has brought in a bill for the environment. It's a private member's bill. It could have been brought in during that year. In the other 47 weeks of that year they could have been here in the House passing bills like the one on the environment, passing bills like this one that the member for Nickel Belt spoke on. It was a good speech. It's good to have him in the House. I'm impressed. He's just been here a few months and he's doing a great job.

I'm really worried that the leader of the New Democratic Party is going to let his wife run in that riding and he's not going to get a chance. I think that would be unfortunate. This is a man who should run in that riding for the NDP. If he gets bumped, I'll tell you, it's going to be very unfortunate.

I'm sure our House leader would like me to get on with the bill at hand, Bill 74, where we're talking about the gas tax. Whenever the gas tax comes up, there are a lot of people in my riding who are pretty concerned about where this gas tax goes. We're paying 14.7 cents per litre to the province of Ontario for gasoline, and we pay 10 cents a litre plus GST to the federal government. It's an excise tax plus the GST. I guess that works out to about - well, I better not do my mental math here.

A lot of people want all of those taxes, particularly the ones coming to the province, to be going to some of the municipal roads. I would suggest that if the federal government paid a little bit of their taxes towards the roads - I know there are just a few million that end up going to some of the roads in Ontario, but it's very little compared to the amount they take in. I'm sure the province would look favourably at it if the federal government just did something with their gas tax and repaired the roads in Ontario. Certainly it would be appreciated by a lot of people. The kind of tax that's been spent on roads in Ontario since 1995 has never been equal.

When we came to office, I remember very well the member for Cornwall complaining bitterly about the potholes on the 401, driving up here. I haven't heard him complain in the last year or so. Those potholes, of course, were there because of the lost decade when very few dollars were being spent either by his government or the NDP government to repair those potholes. I'm sure the member for Cornwall is now driving by all of those centre barriers, driving on a road that's smooth, where there are very few potholes. I'm sure he appreciates the fact that the tax being collected on gasoline, and fuel in general, is going for the right purpose in Ontario. It's building an infrastructure so we can move the goods in Ontario throughout the province, throughout the nation, and also to export them.

It's interesting to note, Madam Speaker, or Mr Speaker - they keep changing on me - the number of transports on the highways today. If you were to go down the 401 right now, east of Toronto, you would see convoys of 12, 15 transports running as a group. That wasn't happening three or four years ago because people were not buying the goods. There wasn't the consumer confidence in Ontario to be buying. There wasn't the business confidence for industry to be building and making the widgets to sell to the people of Ontario or to be exporting.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I was asked about Craig Nuttall. I really don't remember the individual but I understand the Liberals would remember him quite vividly.

We were talking about some of the taxes collected for the roads, and that leads to gas pricing as well. It's interesting to note that the McTeague report was tabled in June 1998 in the federal government - this is a Liberal federal government - recommending that there be protection from gas overpricing. Of course, typical of a Liberal government, the feds are not doing anything about this excellent report. Our own Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has appointed a Consumer Watchdog Commission. At least they are doing something. They get out and monitor the prices.

I don't know if it had anything to do with this commission or not, but driving through Trenton on Saturday evening, I saw the price of gasoline at 36.9 cents per litre for gasoline in Trenton. That's part of the Quinte riding of Doug Rollins, one of the members of this commission. Maybe it has involved his monitoring and checking these stations. I don't know how long it's going to stay down that low, but it's interesting to see that it's there. Speaking of the riding of Quinte, the resolution that member brought in the other day on the fixing of gas prices was interesting.

It's been very frustrating for the consumer over the last several years to see the fluctuating price. It goes up on Friday and stays up until Monday. Especially in the tourist season, when people are wanting to go to the cottage and get out and travel, or go for day trips on the weekend, they get hit by these high gas prices. And they all go up in unison. You really have to question just what's going on out there. Of course, the Combines Investigation Act is part of the federal government. They're the ones who are supposed to be acting and monitoring this kind of thing. It just doesn't seem to be happening.

We're into third reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. Basically, this is a housekeeping bill. We've had a lot of complaints about bills being too thick. We've also had complaints about bills being too thin when they've just been four pages. This one must be just about right for the opposition. They haven't been complaining. It's only some 31, 32 pages. Like Goldilocks, it's just the right size.

This bill amends the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act to implement measures contained in the 1997 and 1998 budgets. There are a lot of interesting aspects to this particular bill as you leaf through it. There's quite an important section in here on measuring volume and calculating the tax. Any student who has gone through physics knows that as a liquid cools it gets smaller and as it warms up it expands, and therefore it's a different size to be measured going through the pump. This act requires that it be calculated to 15 degrees Celsius. A lot of the gasoline coming out of the ground would be in that neighbourhood.

2220

There's also a section in here, "No person shall place or cause to be placed any unauthorized fuel in a fuel tank of a motor vehicle to which a number plate is attached as required under the Highway Traffic Act," things that probably should have been here all along.

"Designation of distributor" is something that's tremendously important. It helps to bring it in line with some of the other tax structures in our country.

"Trust for monies collected": Well, of course you can't allow those dollars to lay around, at least the volume that's taken in on gasoline. It's almost more in taxes than for the product itself. Trusts are set up so that these dollars can be collected.

There's a section in here on the export of fuel as fuel moves back and forth across the border.

Then there's one on dyeing, the colouring of fuels in general and where and when these fuels are supposed to be coloured; the use of the dyes. The minister must approve the kind of dye that's going to be used for this purpose and what is exported as well.

It's also good to have in the bill the offence if unauthorized fuel is used.

This bill is actually very complete on covering and grouping together the taxes that should be used and should cover when gasoline is sold.

When we're talking about taxes, it's interesting to note - and I talked a bit about it this afternoon - the position the federal government is taking or at least that the finance committee is reporting to the Minister of Finance. We sincerely hope the Minister of Finance will pay attention to this finance committee that is recommending that there be $3 billion slashed in taxes federally. All we can do is say, "Amen." We just hope that Paul Martin will follow through.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): He won't.

Mr Galt: Probably he won't, as one of the members says. That's the typical tax, spend and borrow of a Liberal government.

This committee states that Canadians deserve a tax break. We found that out back in the early 1990s. When we were consulting across the province, we found out that people were really upset with the level of taxes in this country. We look around Canada and we see how many other provinces have cut taxes. We look at the States where taxes have been cut. What happens when taxes are cut, especially income tax and sales tax? The revenue goes up, because you stimulate the economy. If the tax was really low, that wouldn't happen. But when you get taxes up to the ridiculous level that we have in this country, it's not surprising that should happen.

This committee goes on to recommend that the 3% surtax for people making an income of over $50,000 a year should be cut. I couldn't agree more. The Liberals in this House have been stating on a regular basis that all the tax cuts are just for the rich. Here we have a Liberal finance committee recommending that the 3% surtax be removed for those people making $50,000 or more. The federal cousins and the local provincial Liberals really should be discussing this and getting together on a common theme.

To go to the next step, there's a recommendation that the 5% surtax be reduced on those people making $65,000 or more. Again, it's talking about the rich. I guess if you make over $65,000 a year, the Liberals would consider that rich, and they would disagree with their federal counterparts. It's also interesting to note in their report that the federal surtax on incomes in this country was a temporary measure. We all know in this House that the Income Tax Act in the first place was a temporary measure.

I guess after - what is it? - 70, 80 years of income taxes in this country, we can now consider it a pretty permanent tax. Although it was brought in as temporary, it's just like these two surtaxes, if something isn't done, if you don't push a Liberal government, they'll hang on to those kinds of taxes forever and a day.

It goes on to state this MP from Vaughan-King-Aurora - and I apologize, I won't try to pronounce his name, I'd make such a mess of it, but he is the one who is saying, "People want tax relief." Manley is saying, "Cut taxes to stimulate the economy." One after another the federal MPs are saying this. They're getting the message, although the provincial Liberals don't seem to understand it.

"Tax reductions are necessary to keep Canada competitive with the US," the report says. Let me tell you about a Canadian - I mentioned this this afternoon - who worked in Silicon Valley in California, making $100,000 Canadian and he was paying $15,000 in taxes, income tax and his health insurance. He moved to Silicon Valley North near Ottawa, making the same salary, and how much income tax does he now pay: $45,000, an increase of $30,000 in taxes. A third of his income was increased for taxes alone, and that's typical of coming to a country where it's overtaxed. What's he going to do? It's part of that brain drain. He's going to leave Ontario to go back to California.

Why is the federal government having a problem with our professional athletes? It's the very same thing. The professional athletes are not going to stay here, at least the good ones. They are going to head to the States because the taxes are so much lower. The federal government is recognizing it and they think they should do something about it. Should they be helping the annual multimillionaire sports figures, all these athletes, or should they be cutting the taxes for the hard-working Canadians across this province? I say cut the taxes, stimulate the economy and more dollars will come in, just as we've proven in Ontario.

On the issue of taxes, why has the federal government balanced its budget? I can tell you why the federal government has balanced the budget: because of the stimulation of the economy in Ontario. If we hadn't stimulated the economy, do you think the federal budget would be balanced now? There's no way that federal budget would be balanced at this point in time. They've balanced it on the backs of people in Ontario. Ontario has been the engine, of course, that has been driving the nation for so long.

This is all about doing what we promised we'd do in the Common Sense Revolution. This copy I have is almost worn out. It's dog-eared, I've been through it so many times. We promised that we would lower our taxes, and we have, a 30% reduction in our income tax for Ontario, meaning, for somebody earning $50,000, in the first three years they would save some $4,052, and when they save those in taxes, those are tax-free dollars.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): And pay that in property taxes.

Mr Galt: I hear the opposition quibbling, "They shouldn't have done that," and that's typical of the opposition, worried that they're going to lose some taxes.

It goes on to say, "There's only one taxpayer," and that is so true. In the past, governments have attacked them from every direction: from property tax to gas tax to income tax to surtaxes to excise tax to liquor taxes, and on and on the list goes.

It's happening all over, even in Quebec. If you noticed the debate in the recent election there, it was getting to the point of who could cut the taxes the most. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, Mr Bouchard is still the Premier of Quebec, but I think what was really interesting was that the campaign, those platforms, were based on economy, stimulating jobs. How were they going to stimulate jobs? By cutting taxes.

Actually, it was Charest, a Conservative who went in, who led this charge and then Bouchard got on the bandwagon and outbid on how much the taxes would be cut in that province. I can only take my hat off to both of those leaders, who recognized what was important to stimulate the economy in Quebec.

2230

We're also doing the right thing with the other taxes that we've cut. We've cut the corporate tax. It will be cut by some 50% by the year 2005 or thereabouts. We've also eliminated the employer health tax for the first $400,000 of payroll. Where did we move that? We moved that to those people earning $50,000 or more. We're adding 2% once you get over $150,000. It's a sliding scale from $50,000 up to $150,000 and then from there on I believe it levels out. The opposition regularly criticizes that we're giving a big tax cut to the rich. In fact we've actually increased the fair share health tax on that particular group.

This indeed is about doing what we said that we were going to do. The payroll tax is the big killer. Who brought in it? Who brought in the employer health tax?

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): The Liberals.

Mr Galt: The Liberals, you're right on. I didn't notice that coming from the Liberal ranks, the answer to that question. They seem to thoroughly enjoy having laid on that employer health tax.

One of the problems for the small business owner was having to calculate this. They have the regular income tax and they have the WCB, now WSIB. They have Canada pension. It's just a whole lot of calculations and this employer health tax was just one more frustration for the small business person. I heard this regularly: It wasn't the amount that really was killing; it was more this difficulty, the frustration, when they had two or three employees, that they had to calculate this on a regular basis.

I just want to make a couple of comments in winding up -

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On a point of order, Speaker: It is an interesting debate going on. Could you check to see if there's a quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: It is disappointing to find that we actually have members in the House who do not have enough fingers and toes to be able to count the number in the House. The member for Cochrane North, it was a nice try, but next time, before you call for a quorum check, just count up how many are in the House and then you won't be embarrassed. You have to take your socks off if you're going to check your toes.

I was about to wind up when I was so rudely interrupted. I think what this government really needs to be doing, and we've been pushing them pretty hard, is addressing what the federal government has been doing to the province, what it has been doing to the whole country of Canada. They are the ones who have cut funding to health care. They are the ones who have taken away from health care. We hear people talk about cuts in health care. The only ones in the province of Ontario who have cut health care are the federal Liberals, by over $2 billion, and across Canada, $6 billion annually. That is shameful. There is absolutely no question. In spite of that, we have increased our spending for health care by almost $2 billion. It was $17.4 billion; we're now well up over $18.5 billion, approaching $19 billion.

I think it's time that the federal Liberal government returned the unemployment insurance dollars. It's a shame that they would let this great big fund build up and keep that high level of payroll taxes that is so discouraging to workers. It's a real job killer and it's been proven over and over again. I think it's high time that they came clean with the workers of this province. They did reduce it - what was it, 15 cents? - and then they put up the Canada pension plan by 30 cents, and they think they're a winner, they think they're marvellous, they think they're wonderful. They really don't understand what they're doing to the workers of this province.

We have a bit of a disaster in this country with prices for hogs. They've dropped precipitously over the last three months. Our Minister of Agriculture has worked very hard and he's committed to helping these farmers. But what is the federal Minister of Agriculture doing, the Honourable Lyle Vanclief, who used to be a hog farmer not too many years ago? What's he doing? He says, "Well, maybe come spring we might do something." How many farmers are going to be bankrupt come spring? There's going to be a pile of them bankrupt then.

We desperately need some sort of national plan to recognize farmers when they're in a disastrous situation, such as the hog farmers are in now, such as some farmers in Ontario this fall with the drought conditions across the province, like the apple farmers in my riding. We had about 30 apple farmers literally wiped out because of the hailstorm. One apple they showed me had 17 hits from hailstones, hailstones that were far larger than golf balls. They claim they were the size of a hardball. When we get hailstones that size with jagged projections of ice, it does an awful lot of damage not only to the crop hanging on the trees but also to the branches and to the bark, where disease can enter in. I can tell you, there are going to be a lot of lost trees in the future. What does our federal government do? Sit on it, talk about it. They can really talk the talk. The problem is they don't know how to walk the walk.

While I'm on the federal government, we should also cover their lack of action on the Young Offenders Act. I have no idea when they're going to respond and do something about that Young Offenders Act. Literally everybody in this great country of Canada wants something done about the Young Offenders Act and they refuse to respond.

I've sidetracked, got just a little off the original bill here, off on to taxes. Coming back to Bill 74, it's An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act. It's really a housekeeping bill. The bill amends the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act to implement measures contained in the 1997 and 1998 budgets. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak and to move around just a little bit, quite freely here, and talk about some of the other tax issues that are so important to the people of Ontario. I encourage all of the members in the House to support Bill 74 when we get a chance to vote on it later this evening.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: I am pleased to be able to join this debate this evening. I just wanted to comment on Bill 74 and some of the details of the bill. Bill 74 is An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act, as was mentioned. Those people who've followed the budget process closely will know that Bill 74 delivers on our government's commitments made in the 1997 and 1998 budgets.

The commitments made in those budgets are worth looking back on. In my research in preparation for speaking tonight, I went back -

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): That is the old Hansard. I just read that.

Mr Spina: - and looked through those budgets to see the references that were made that now are coming to light in Bill 74.

Mr Christopherson: Point of order, Speaker: As I was doing my research for this speech, when the House leader shifted gears I read that speech. Is it parliamentary to read the same speech word for word in the House?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to think that I could get credit for some degree of creativity, but I appreciate the comment from the member from Hamilton.

Mr Christopherson: You are holding up the Hansard.

Mr Spina: Back in the 1997 Ontario budget, there was a reference on page 136 -

Mr Christopherson: Couldn't you at least edit it a bit?

Mr Spina: I have, sir. For those people following at home, there was a reference to the province taking a look "at ways to improve the timeliness of its cash flows, including tax remittances and flows to transfer payment partners." The reason for that was that in a continuing effort to reduce our deficit situation we wanted to find efficiencies that would "ease cash balance requirements." "Liquid reserve levels" could be lowered as a result of these improvements to cash flow, and of course that would lead to "lower public debt interest charges."

2240

I'm pleased to tell you that much of the effort made in drafting Bill 74 is aimed at improving the cash flow consequences that come from the fuel taxes that are imposed by the provincial government. As you'll note from some comments, perhaps some of the changes we're making were made after consultation with the fuel industry in Ontario, particularly before second reading. Many of the changes that we're bringing in are bringing the Ontario tax collection system in this industry in line with practice at the federal government level as well.

The 1998 budget also refers to the budget papers, and I'm referring to budget paper C on page 99. On that page it was indicated that in Ontario we would be taking steps to minimize "red tape for fuel exporters by amending the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act to remove provisions requiring exporters to give advance notice of their intent to remove motive fuels in bulk from Ontario," and also to amend "the Gasoline Tax Act to implement the 1997 budget initiative to optimize cash flows by bringing tax remittance dates in line with those of the federal Excise Tax Act." Isn't that amazing? Ontario will actually work with the industry to implement these changes.

Interjection.

Mr Spina: In answer to the question: 3217.

In addition to dealing with the red tape issue, I thought I would deal with the sections of Bill 74 that deal with motive fuels. Most people know that the volume of many liquids generally expands as temperatures rise and it contracts as temperatures fall. The difference in volume is especially noticeable in gasoline and diesel fuels.

Mr Galt: Point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the speech is quite interesting. I wonder if we could find the page in Hansard so that we could follow along.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ontario gasoline and fuel sales and taxes are based on volume. The industry measures fuel in two different ways. I pay a compliment for part of my research to the honourable member from Muskoka-Georgian Bay, because I know that he worked very hard in preparing some of the material for this particular debate and this particular speech.

One of the two ways of measuring fuel is known as ambient temperature volume. It measures the volume based on the actual weather temperature. The second way corrects for seasonal fluctuations. To accommodate this, the industry has developed a temperature-adjusted volume measurement standard of 15 degrees Celsius. I think this is interesting because, you see, I didn't learn any of this. It wasn't part of my curriculum when I was in grade 11 physics. This has become an international standard. In most cases, the same method of measuring the volume of motive fuel sold is used for both tax and sales purposes. Problems arise when the volume of the product sold differs from the volume of product on which the tax is charged.

We sometimes have to use creativity, but we want to make sure that the standards are consistent province-wide. The real issue we're getting at in this bill is consistency and making sure the industry deals with a level playing field when they collect the tax on the fuels they're selling. Bill 74 suggests that in responding to the industry's concerns, they want to have the same system when they calculate how to assess the tax on the fuel being sold. Bill 74 provides a fairer way to calculate that tax. The industry has asked for legislation to ensure that all members of the industry follow the same rules, so we have done that and now we have one rule that applies at the federal level and at the provincial level.

At the outset I talked about the concern of cash flow that was mentioned both in the 1997 and 1998 Ontario budgets.

Interjection.

Mr Spina: Madam Speaker, it's tough enough to contend with the opposition heckling, but it's really tough when it comes from your own members.

We talked about the 1997 and 1998 Ontario budgets, so I thought I'd make a few remarks about -

Mr Christopherson: "I thought I'd make a few remarks about what in Bill 74 would improve the cash-flow situation of" -

Mr Spina: - "would improve the cash flow situation of" -

Mr Christopherson: - "the Ontario government."

Mr Spina: I'm glad, Madam Speaker, for the assistance I received from one of your fellow caucus members.

"At present, the province has an imbalance in its cash flows with respect to fuel tax. We pay disbursements during the first half of the month and we receive revenues during the second half of the month. What we try to do to improve our cash flow is bring our revenue times closer" -

Mr Christopherson: - "to our disbursement times."

Mr Spina: "The bill deals with the issue of cash flow in several different parts, and it requires that the larger operators in the fuel industry submit their tax revenues at an earlier time in the process. Thus, the province will collect that money at an earlier time and not have to borrow monies, as it would have had to do with the later dates that are currently in both the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act."

Mr Christopherson: - "the Fuel Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act."

Mr Spina: There's a really marvellous echo in here, Madam Speaker.

"With respect to the cash flows, it's expected that this will save as much as $4 million on an annual basis and thus put the province in a position of not having to borrow those monies. That is again an issue that was raised in the 1997 budget, when the finance minister indicated that efforts would be made to improve the cash flows. Similar steps were taken in previous bills that dealt with other tax collection statutes under the provincial government, but the issue of collecting fuel taxes has been dealt with separately and we're now dealing with it in Bill 74."

"Bill 74 also has provisions to make gasoline and fuel tax system collections fairer. One of the items the bill does is that it allows people who have been overassessed on their collections of tax to appeal those decisions for a four-year period rather than a three-year period, as was the case before.

"Bill 74 improves the efficiency of the government in processing objections and appeals in the tax collection process and it speeds up the resolution process as well. The issue of the three- or four-year period for claim refunds for taxes paid in error parallels other provisions in the draft act which change the time period that the government has to reassess or audit the collection procedures of the distributors of fuel, taking that again from a three-year period to a four-year period. It really brings it in line with the assessment and refund period in other provincial tax acts so that there is a general four-year period of assessment and refunds."

So again we have consistency, "a consistency there that's been attained through the use of the tax system and through the amendments that are suggested in this bill that would be brought to the fuel tax collection system. Those are in line, as I said, with changes brought to other acts, such as the Retail Sales Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act, which we brought in in the fall of 1997."

The Acting Speaker: Member for Brampton North, I'm going to have to call you to order. You will check your standing orders. It's very clear: "In the opinion of the Speaker," if a member "refers at length to debates of the current session, or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document" - you have been reading verbatim from Hansard for quite a long time now and you're very clearly out of order. I ask you to wrap up your comments from Hansard now. I'll give you another minute or two, and then you will have to cease and desist from reading from Hansard.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: You indicated that it would be out of order if the member reads unnecessarily from previous speeches of this Legislature, and I'm going to suggest that it is necessary that the member speak directly from the previous speech. I don't know how he could give a speech unless he referred to the notes in front of him.

2250

The Acting Speaker: It's my opinion that the member for Brampton North is very clearly breaking the rules of the House, and I ask him if he would please stop reading from Hansard.

Go ahead, member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: Madam Speaker, I would only indicate that I have not entirely read this thing verbatim. I've isolated what I thought were the key points germane to the bill and to the points in the bill. Frankly, I don't know that anyone said it better than the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, so I was very pleased to quote him.

I'd indicate that of course I'll be supporting this bill, but I also want to talk about some of the gasoline practices of the large supplier-retailers. That continues to be a problem when it threatens consumers with unreasonably high prices. Price increases are often timed to coincide with long weekends, with vacation periods, that sort of thing. It's important, as we develop this consistency through this bill, that we address those particular problems our consumers face when we end up with cartel price-setting by some gasoline companies or fuel supply companies. That often makes it very difficult for the independent gas retailers to compete in Ontario.

To use the member for Simcoe Centre's words, he says you could drive a truck through that Competition Act. He claims that the federal government has done nothing to ensure fair gas prices in this country. But we are working towards correcting that by addressing those issues here in Bill 74.

The government of Ontario has called upon the federal government, as we've heard at various times, to try to address this issue, to level the playing field, as it were, on this particular issue and to amend the Competition Act on a federal basis so we can level the playing field, make it better for the consuming public. Not only that, it makes it better for the small, independent dealer-retailer to have better cash flow and, in addition to that, to be more competitive in terms of dealing with their customers, particularly at those times of year.

We've had some people involved here in the province, members of our own caucus, who became members of the task force to monitor gas prices in Ontario. They went around the province and found great variations in gas prices, and it depended on a number of factors. Some of those factors are astounding. They often found higher prices as people were approaching high concentrations of cottage country. They found lower prices in less populated areas, less popular areas. It begs the question, why do we have such a variance in these prices?

In any case, when we talk about gas pricing we have to also realize that it is the only flat tax we have in this province. It doesn't matter whether the gasoline is sold in Toronto, Kenora, Sudbury, Muskoka, Windsor or Cornwall; the gas tax is exactly the same province-wide. The retail portion is what varies, and by trying to adjust at least the tax collection process, we can assist these dealers in being able to be more competitive.

When you talk about taxes, you can talk about taxes on a wide scale. We've had various comments tonight about personal income taxes, about taxes on many different things, employer taxes and so on. I guess the truth is that taxes have been heading higher in Canada, not lower, because we've suffered the highest personal income tax rate in the industrialized world. It's 18% of the GDP. If you add business, payroll and sales taxes, it climbs to 28%, and that's up from 26% in 1965. It's so bad that we now have to work until June 26 to pay the tax man, with an average family earning $55,069 a year dishing out $26,931 in total taxes, and that includes income, sales, property, auto, gas and tobacco and other taxes incurred by these consumers.

That's why angry taxpayers are revolting and telling Ottawa, "No more taxes." As Mr Galt indicated to us, that's what they told us when we were in the process of developing our policy prior to the 1995 election, and we responded. We responded by reducing taxes 66 times in the various bills we've introduced over the past three and a half years. In addition to that, we also reduced the personal income taxes by the 30% we promised. Taxes in this country are too high and still climbing.

Mr Len Wood: You whacked everybody in the north.

Mr Spina: The member for Cochrane North says we whacked everybody in the northwest.

Mr Len Wood: You put a tax of 38 bucks on every car.

Mr Spina: I see. The member for Brampton North will also recall - sorry, Cochrane North; I didn't mean to bring you down south here, Len. The member for Cochrane North will also recall that that $37 licence fee totals a grand sum of $15 million annually to the provincial coffers. But what has happened is that not only has the northern Ontario population gotten that $15 million back, they also got another $445 million over and above that over a three-year period, two of which have already been concluded, and those dollars have been invested into northern Ontario highways. You're getting it all back in spades, because you now are approaching the level of professional highway infrastructure that the north so well deserves and needs for the industrial economy to operate, for the logging industry, for the mining industry, for the tourism industry.

Mr Len Wood: Take a drive in the north and see the potholes. The potholes are so big they're blowing tires off cars.

Mr Spina: The potholes are gone, sir. The worst part of the highway was the Vermilion Bay Road, and, frankly, it is now off the Reader's Digest list of bad highways in North America.

Mr Len Wood: Check Highway 11. It's a disaster.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. Member for Cochrane North, your turn will come again and then we'll ask for your submission, your debate. In the meantime -

Mr Len Wood: I want to get the facts from him.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm standing up, and when I'm standing up you listen. I'm warning you that you can't indulge in the debate unless you have the floor, and you do not have the floor. The Chair recognizes the member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Speaker. I'm trying to give the member the facts for the northern Ontario highways. The reality is that we've spent over $145 million each year over the last two years and there's another $150 million coming up in the next fiscal year. I can tell you, we have many testimonials telling us about how terrific the highways have been in northern Ontario. In fact, I had one individual from Sudbury tell us that the refinished, extended Highway 69 has reduced his travel time to Toronto by over half an hour. People in northwestern Ontario have had a fantastic time. People I know, friends from Ottawa who went to visit their child, their family in Winnipeg, drove Highway 17 across northern Ontario. You know what? They couldn't believe the difference from three or four years ago.

2300

You know what the opposition did? When the NDP was in government, that $15 million they gave to their consumers, that $37 fee they pay - what they didn't tell the public is that they knocked it out of the highway budget. Of course the whole highway system deteriorated and began to fall apart. It's pretty easy to give somebody a gift, that 37 bucks a head, and say, "Look what nice guys we are. We didn't charge you your licence fee," and it's only half of what southern Ontario pays. On the other hand, you abandoned the highways. Who gets the short end of the stick then? The people of northern Ontario. The NDP live in a glass house. To attack us on a $37 fee is ludicrous, because they took that money directly out of the northern Ontario highway budget.

I want to get back to the tax issue. The numbers say it all, really, because from 1989 to 1996 federal and provincial taxes rose from 21.5% of personal income to 24.5%, and that result was an 8.4% drop in real disposable income. In 1996 alone, personal incomes fell 0.4% while federal and provincial taxes jumped 2.6%, and that forced disposable incomes to drop again by 1.4%.

There are a lot of taxes on the market, and this is the reason this government has been attempting to not only reduce taxes but adjust the taxation structure and modify the system so it works for the taxpayer of this province. We have to work really hard to do that, because previous governments over the years only thought one way: "We need more money. Where do we get it? Two choices: We either borrow it or raise taxes."

I'm disappointed that some communities chose to increase taxes over the years. School boards increased their taxes by 116% over a 10-year period, yet that money didn't go into the school system. They invested about an 80% increase. The interesting question is that with school taxes, where the heck did the other 30% or 40% go? That's the real puzzling question. That's the reason this government has chosen to try to address how we can better deliver the services, how we can get better for less, so we don't become a drag on the taxpayers of this province.

Even Minister Manley at the federal government level said it is better - and I'm not quoting directly, obviously - to have the dollars in the pocket of the taxpayer than in the pocket of the government. When I first read that quote in one of the newspaper articles I was amazed, but I was also pleased that the federal Minister of Industry actually agreed with what this government is trying to do - not in all cases, and we fully understand that. He's not a member of the Conservative Party, he's a member of the Liberal Party, and that's fully appreciated. But the reality is that we have to be able to control how we run government, a better way to run government, a more efficient way to run government, a way to make it better for the taxpayer.

We talked about some of the various needs in this gas bill. One of the things I wanted to mention is that in August 1997, Minister Tsubouchi tabled a resolution in the Legislature. What he called for at the time was that the federal government control the gasoline pricing problems by amending the Competition Act, as I referred to earlier. He wanted them to address the pricing practices within the industry. That resolution also called for the appointment of a special investigator to enforce a revised Competition Act, and that was to ensure that consumers benefit from a competitive and more transparent gasoline pricing structure right across this country, particularly the people of Ontario.

We think the federal government may be now looking at trying to address this issue, but I'd like to say one thing about the federal government gas taxes: Ontario gives a lot of gas tax dollars to the federal government from right across this province. We have this little band that crosses the province. It's called Highway 17 and Highway 11 and it's called the Trans-Canada Highway. You know what? Almost all of it goes through northern Ontario. It is the Trans-Canada Highway.

We could always ask our federal Liberal members, the 101 Dalmatians who represent this province in Ottawa, how much they have returned to the Trans-Canada Highway system in the province of Ontario using their federal gasoline tax dollars. How much? Do you know what the answer is? Not one red cent, and I choose the colour deliberately. Not one red cent comes back to this province from the federal gasoline taxes we pay. Any tax dollars applied towards the Ontario highway infrastructure system come from our own consumers all over the province. None of those federal gasoline tax dollars come back to this province. The federal government has not invested one dime, not one red penny, in the Trans-Canada Highway that graces this province, and they have not in recent years.

I challenge anyone to correct me and to show me any facts. Give me the numbers and tell me where they have put in the dollars, because we have not seen it. I would be pleased to be corrected if that was the case, but I have not seen it yet and I've researched it as best I can. I have given speeches across northern Ontario and southern Ontario, and I've got to tell you, I have not seen this anywhere.

It's upsetting to a lot of our visitors in this country when they see the price of gas being moved around, up and down and around. I hope the federal Competition Act addresses this. We already pay enough tax on our gasoline. The province collects, as we know, 14.7 cents on the litre. The federal government collects 10 cents gas tax plus the GST, which works out to a little over three cents, or approximately three and a half cents. Then there's another three-cent markup, basically for handling, by the local service station. Then there's the cost of the actual gasoline being delivered. We end up with a price of about 50 cents or slightly more on a per-litre basis.

That's the price we usually end up with in southern Ontario and it's more or less consistent across the 401 strip. But when we go to other, more rural areas, when we go to northern Ontario, I can tell you it is considerably higher. We can speculate, is it because it costs more to deliver the fuel to northern Ontario?

Mr Len Wood: No.

Mr Spina: That's what the companies say. The member for Cochrane North disagrees. He says that isn't the case. You know what? I kind of suspect he's right. This is one occasion where I think I'll agree with the member for Cochrane North, that it isn't just the cost of transporting that fuel to northern Ontario.

2310

I don't know what it is. One could speculate that it is the economies of scale, that the consumers of northern Ontario don't use as much gasoline as the consumers of southern Ontario on a mass basis. I might understand that argument, because we have 850,000 residents who live in northern Ontario across the north, and maybe 850,000 residents don't consume as much as 850,000 in the south. But if you look at the way we have winter driving in northern Ontario - and having grown up and lived in Sault Ste Marie until I was the age of 24, and having travelled clear across northern Ontario, right from the Kenora border to the Quebec border, I can tell you that gas consumption is higher with winter weather. Not only that, we have the usage of the Trans-Canada Highway, so I'm not sure that even that economic argument holds up. If the federal government could examine the Competition Act, maybe we would be able to then have it dovetail with this particular act, Bill 74, which tries to adjust the process of fuel and gasoline collection in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): To listen to the member for Brampton North, who often comes to northern Ontario to sell himself as a northerner, being that he did spend I believe he said 24 years in Sault Ste Marie, suggest that he understands the issues of the folks of the north is truly amazing. I think people in northern Ontario, particularly in northwestern Ontario, see through the fact that a member from Brampton North has a difficult time understanding that we in northern Ontario are faced with much higher gasoline taxes for a great number of reasons. The question that comes to me quite often is why we can pay the same amount for liquor, alcohol and beer across the entire province, yet a government cannot get control of gasoline in terms of equalizing the gas prices in the entire province.

I often think about the promise of the NDP in the 1990 election campaign when the then member, who eventually became the Minister of Northern Development, said in her campaign literature that, should they form the government, the NDP would equalize gas prices in all of Ontario, including northern Ontario, southern Ontario - across the province. I had a great number of my constituents saying, "Here's a party that has indicated that to us," not knowing, at that point when she made that commitment, that they would form the government and she would become the Minister of Northern Development, and of course we saw nothing in terms of equalizing gas prices across northern Ontario.

The member goes on to talk about the highways in northern Ontario as if they were all in great shape. I would ask him to take the drive from Vermilion Bay to Red Lake, from Kenora to Fort Frances, and then come back and tell me that the highways are in such great shape.

Mr Len Wood: I listened very attentively to the member from the government side on Bill 74. He was talking about all the money that was spent in northern Ontario on roads. I can tell you that last week and the week before, the potholes were so bad on Highway 11 around the Cochrane area that I have broken two windshields, and some of the cars are hitting potholes so big that the tires are going flat as a result of it. Sure, they send out a crew to put some asphalt in there, but when you've got the rain and the frost and the snow, the potholes get worse all the time, and they're not doing anything about it.

On top of that, they've downloaded most of Highway 11 that goes through all the towns and they're saying, "These are connecting links and the property owners in these towns should pay for the upkeep of this highway," which I consider to be the Trans-Canada Highway. You've got signs in Cochrane saying "Extension of Yonge Street" going all the way through to the Manitoba border, and yet the highway is not being maintained.

When we were in government, we eliminated the licence plate fees for passenger cars in northern Ontario. We said, "This is going to help compensate a little bit for the longer winters, the high price of gasoline, the 20-cent difference there is per litre on gasoline prices," so we eliminated the fee on passenger vehicles. The Conservative government put it back on and yet never put any money back into northern Ontario roads. Not a penny went back in. It was just a simple tax grab. They took a $37 tax on each and every vehicle in northern Ontario and they're using that for advertising, they're using it for a $600,000 fund they've got set up for Al McLean, for hush money to cover up a sex scandal within the Conservative government, and things of this kind, as well as $40 million or $50 million they're spending on advertising. My phones are ringing off the hook saying, "When are we going to get somebody to stand up for our area?"

Mr Parker: As always, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the remarks of the celebrated member for Northumberland and the member for Brampton North on the subject of Bill 74. I enjoyed the dissertation this evening. It was a very good refresher course on the remarks we heard earlier this fall on the same subject at an earlier reading of the bill. The first time through, I paid close attention to the science of the effect of temperature on the volumetric measurement of liquids, but it's always good to have the refresher course because you forget the odd detail. It was good to be reminded of some of the finer points of that particular science and to be reminded again of how the bill addresses the practical concerns that arise as a result of that phenomenon.

I appreciated in particular the remarks of my good friend the celebrated and much-appreciated, much-loved member for Brampton North who, by the way, is well known not only in this chamber and not only in his home riding of Brampton North, but throughout the north of this province. I should make it clear to you and to the others in this chamber that the member for Brampton North does an outstanding job representing the concerns of the north of this province as he travels from place to place and meets with people like Craig Nuttall, whose name has come up already this evening, and brings their message to Toronto, to Queen's Park so that people -

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Comments and questions?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): It's amazing to find out how little the members for Northumberland and Brampton North know about the condition of the highways in the eastern part of Ontario. He was referring to Highway 401, that it used to be full of potholes, but today you haven't driven on Highway 417 leading to the Quebec border. It's in such bad shape, I don't know if this ministry is trying to transfer the 417 to the municipality like they did with Highway 17 in eastern Ontario. They transferred it to the municipality in very poor condition.

I thought this bill would have recognized that now that we have transferred a series of highways to the municipality, a certain portion of the fuel tax would go to the municipality, but that's not what it is at all. I think that at the present time this government is trying to get rid of their assets by transferring the highways to the municipalities - again, how important it is that this government starts to look at the possibility of transferring a portion of that tax to the municipality.

In my own riding, Ettyville bridge at the present time has been closed. The farmers have to go around 23 kilometres to get to their fields. There are three farmers there. Mr Harrigan and Mr St Pierre cannot get to their fields, which are at a distance of only a couple of hundred feet. But the ministry has cut down all the subsidies to the municipality and now they just can't afford to fix the bridge. They closed the bridge.

It's the same thing on Highway 17. By the year 2005, it's going to cost the people of Prescott and Russell around $10 million.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: With respect to this bill there are a number of things that we could say, but I just want to respond particularly to the members for Kenora and Cochrane North. I'm really puzzled. I made a mistake and I will apologize, because I didn't spend the first 24 years of my life in northern Ontario. I was trying to make myself younger than I am. I spent the first 28 years of my life in northern Ontario and I've spent 24 years in southern Ontario. I must be a bastard child according to the member for Kenora, because I must know less about southern Ontario than I know about northern Ontario. How long do you have to live someplace to have an appreciation of what's going on? You don't live there your entire life. The member for Cochrane North was born in Stratford. Does that mean he doesn't know northern Ontario? Of course not. He has lived there many years.

I drove from Thunder Bay to Fort Frances to Kenora to Dryden and back to Thunder Bay three weeks ago. I've been on that highway. I was snowed in in Dryden on November 10. I can tell you, my friend, I've been on those highways. To say that we didn't put any money back into northern highways is an outright lie.

2320

Mr Len Wood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know if you picked that up, but the previous member was just saying that there are lies being given in this House. I would ask that be withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: In actual fact, there was a lot of other background noise and I did not pick it up. If the member for Brampton North has anything that he'd like to withdraw, I'd invite him to do so at this moment.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: No. I don't debate points of order. I'd like to clear them up. If there is a different one, I'll look after that one later.

Mr Klees: OK, I'll make a different one.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm asking the member for Brampton North to withdraw.

Mr Spina: If it was unparliamentary, I'll withdraw it, Speaker.

Mr Klees: On a different point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: There are two of us standing up. Only one is supposed to be and it's me. I did learn something tonight and I have a greater appreciation now for the member for Cochrane North.

Mr Klees: I was listening very carefully to the debate. I'm quite positive that the word "lie" as it was used is spelled l-y-e, which is not the same kind of lie that the member for Cochrane North referred to.

The Deputy Speaker: A point of order means that there is something wrong. There is nothing wrong, so that is not a point of order.

Further debate? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I welcome the opportunity this evening to talk about a bill that deals with gas prices and gas taxes in this province, because I can assure you that what I will be saying is within the jurisdiction of the provincial Parliament. I won't be talking about the United Nations, the municipality of Burlington, the municipality of Sault Ste Marie, the federal government, the Alberta government. I'll be talking about what the Ontario government can do in terms of gas pricing. All that the members of the government want to do is point fingers. Somebody should get them all a pair of white gloves to direct traffic for somebody else. They're first in line to accept the credit and last in line to accept the responsibility on every occasion.

If the gas prices in this province go down, then of course what you find is that the so-called gas-busters are taking credit. Everybody is a commissioner now. Their backbenchers, who have nothing to do, are sent out with throwaway cameras and they take some pictures, and if the gas prices are down they say, "Well, it's because of the provincial gas-busters"; if the gas prices go up, it must be the federal government's fault. You see, they're extremely inconsistent.

I know where the responsibility lies because I was looking at some of the states, because you people love to adulate and imitate the United States. In the United States, there are 26 states that have fair price laws that prohibit major oil companies from charging customers less than the cost of their gas, which would make it impossible for the smaller independent firms to compete. Seven states limit the right of refiners to own their own stations, a rule that independents say encourages competition. In the United States, which is supposed to have the freest market anywhere in the world, we have 26 states with fair price laws prohibiting major oil companies from charging customers less than the cost of their gas, and we have six states, of course, that prohibit the refiners from owning their own gas stations. That's the United States.

Mike Harris makes a big noise when the prices go up. I heard him. He was rough and tough and gruff; he was going to tell the oil companies what to do when those prices went up. When it came to calling them on the carpet, calling his good friends the oil barons into his office to say, "Come on you people, you shouldn't be gouging the" -

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): No, that was Mulroney. Talk about Mulroney.

Mr Bradley: It's not Mulroney's fault in this case; it's Mike Harris's fault. Mulroney is in the past. But I would have thought, with all the friends the Premier has in the oil industry, all the oil barons, that he would have been calling them on the carpet and saying, "Look, you can't continue to gouge the people of Ontario with gas price hikes the way you have." Instead, he was large as life when he was elbowing people around who were not very powerful, he was a lion in dealing with lower-income people on social assistance, but when it came to dealing with the oil barons, the captains of the oil industry -

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, that was l-i-o-n?

Mr Bradley: Exactly, the l-i-o-n-s of this province. Did he do anything about it? No, he was a real pussycat when it came to those people, because he is good at elbowing aside the small people who aren't very powerful, bullying those people around, but when it comes to the oil giants, when it comes to the captains of industry, he is their buddy; he shakes their hands. I would have thought he'd have had a chance to talk to them at the big fundraisers the Conservatives hold where the corporate elite shows up to pour millions of dollars into the coffers of the Conservative Party.

As we know, under new legislation just passed by this government, forced through with a time allocation motion closing off debate, we are now allowed in this province, political parties and candidates, to spend more money than ever before. There's also a situation where you can give more money now to a political party or candidate. The sky is the limit on such things as polling, such things as research. We now see that that's going to be happening in this province.

The party that caters to the richest people, the most privileged people, the most powerful people in the province, that party, the Conservative Party, the Reform-a-Tories who sit opposite us, will reap the benefits of those people who have the money because the people who are making a modest income and are the victims of this government don't have the money. They have the votes but they don't have the money, and that's how this government wishes to manipulate the next provincial election.

When it came to dealing with gas prices, the only thing they could do is point somewhere else. My colleagues and I have asked many questions of ministers, and there was one minister who gave honest answers to this House. He's no longer a minister. I don't know if that's the reason, because he was a good fellow. I happen to have a lot of admiration for the member for Eglinton who, when he was Minister of Tourism and was asked questions about gas prices, gave honest answers. The others were impersonating - some of you people, maybe the Minister of Agriculture with his many years of experience in life would remember somebody called Phineas T. Bluster. He was on the program called Howdy Doody. I see that Buffalo Bob died, by the way, a short time ago, which is very sad. Buffalo Bob used to be the host on the Howdy Doody Show. The one person they had who I always thought was rather interesting was somebody called -

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Your hero.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Was he a Liberal supporter?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Clarabell was your role model.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

2330

Mr Bradley: I didn't know the member for Burlington South would remember those days. Of course, there are people in the cabinet, some of his cabinet colleagues, who may well be impersonating Clarabell, as he mentioned. But I'm talking about Phineas T. Bluster. The Premier and a couple of the ministers over there did a great impersonation of Phineas T. Bluster: a lot of noise, a lot of pronouncements and a lot of nothing coming of it when they were asked to do something directly. They pointed somewhere else at all times. They huffed and they puffed and did nothing after that.

I want to tell members -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I hear an interjection from the member for Northumberland who portrays himself as one of the captains of private industry, of the private sector. I thought he had spent most of his adult life as a public servant, on the public payroll, but to hear his speeches in this House, I was convinced when he was first elected that he was from the private sector as he extolled the virtues of the private sector. But all of his life, almost, he was in the public sector accepting those cheques from the taxpayers of Ontario. He interjects now.

I want to say that since the takeover of the Harris government, the number of independent retailers in Ontario has decreased, competitiveness of the marketplace has diminished and the large oil companies have taken advantage by gouging motorists at the pumps.

The Harris government has been told, as we all know, by those of us in the opposition for the last two years that they should take action by doing one of two things: by calling the big oil companies on the carpet or by passing predatory pricing legislation.

The quotes from the Harris government are rather interesting, when they're asked what they're going to do. They usually get up, large as life, passing some resolution saying that the federal government should do something. But of course most people in this province know that gas pricing is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who was of course our good friend the member for Eglinton, Bill Saunderson -

Hon Mr Jackson: And tourism.

Mr Bradley: And he was tourism as well - said in May 1996 in response to one of our questions, and this was an honest response from the government side because he was saying what the government really thought, not all the bluster but what the government's real opinion was: "Ontario motorists enjoy the most competitive prices, I think, in the world. I think overall Ontario is very well served." This was while the prices were going sky high. That's what he had to say, an honest answer to this House. While other ministers fulminated and made noise and pointed fingers elsewhere, he said this is the policy of this government.

The minister, again in response to one of our questions on gas-price gouging, said on February 20 of that particular year the following:

"If you travel across Canada, I think our prices that I see at the pumps these days are quite fair. When one travels outside Canada, our prices here are also comparable - and I say that again, comparable - to what I see going on in the world. There are certain areas that are closer to gas and oil production facilities and therefore pay a lesser price, but I think under our circumstances our prices are quite fair."

This was at the same time that the Premier, when confronted and pinned against the wall, was saying the prices were unfair. Of course, the Premier was simply then putting on a show and the minister was being honest, putting the real position of the Conservative government.

Also on this very same day, the minister was asked if he would take the time to at least consider calling the big oil bosses on the carpet and to protect consumers who recognized that they were being gouged by greedy monopolists. The minister, however, responded in the following way. Let me quote him. This is again what Bill Saunderson had to say, an honest answer from the point of view of the government. He was giving the honest answer. Others were making noises and pointing elsewhere, and I want to give him credit for that.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for York-Mackenzie on a point of order.

Mr Klees: Mr Speaker, I've been listening very carefully to the member and I believe there's a very subtle train of argument here that the member is using. If you analyze carefully his reference on the one hand to the honest answers of a member, he is implying very carefully that others are in fact not being honest.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I wouldn't want to impute any motive or anything on the part of the member for St Catharines. The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: He is very naive.

Mr Bradley: I thank the member for Perth. I hear him being called naive. He's not naive, he's a very good Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If the government wants to challenge the submissions from the member for St Catharines, they should at least have a quorum. I don't believe they have a quorum and I'd like you to check.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please see if there's a quorum present?

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I'm sorry the member for York-Mackenzie would want to challenge your observations of what's going on in this House tonight because I've always found you to be a most fair Speaker in this House and one who understands the latitude of the House. I'll tell you something, he recognizes I would never impute motives to anybody. I'm simply talking about some honest answers I'm hearing from ministers.

I want to go back to this fact. We have the greedy monopolists. These are the oil barons, the friends of the government.

Mr Klees: Step outside and say that, Jim.

Mr Bradley: You would know that. You know who they are.

Here's what was asked. The question was asked again of Bill Saunderson, my good friend from Eglinton, then the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. While the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was saying how shocked he was at the gas prices and how unacceptable, publicly, the Minister of Energy was saying something - no, he was blaming the gas taxes, even though his own government put the gas taxes on as well, and the chief government whip was whispering in his ear, "Blame the federal government." Here's what Mr Saunderson had to say. This is probably the most revealing comment of a minister, saying what the government really thinks of gas prices, what their real position is. He said:

"We don't intend to dictate to companies what they should and should not do.... I have no intention of interfering with the free enterprise system, the pricing system. If we were to do that we would be a laughingstock, sir. It would be a big mistake for this province. We would not attract businesses to this province."

That's what the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism said when asked: "What are you going to do about the gas prices? Are you going to call the oil barons on the carpet? Are you going to pass a predatory pricing law in the province? Are you going to freeze gasoline prices the way Bill Davis did?" This was his answer. I consider this an honest, straightforward answer and the real position of the government. So when they start pointing fingers elsewhere, we know where this government really stood on the issue of gas prices: foursquare, shoulder to shoulder with the oil barons who were gouging the consumers in those days.

2340

I remember that the Minister of Energy of the day was Mr Sterling. In the United States the issue had come up that the gas prices were going up. This was in the United States, so what did the Republicans say? Did they blame their friends in the oil industry? Did they say it was the oil barons? Did they say the gasoline vending companies were gouging the people? No, no. They said it was taxes: "If only the taxes weren't there, we wouldn't have a problem with the gas prices." Well, the only thing that had risen in Ontario and in the United States at the time was not the gas taxes but the prices charged by the oil barons. But here was the minister of the day again defending the giants of industry against the consumers of this province.

What do we have today? We have a Premier who is being very macho about it, pretending he was going to do something to stop the gas prices from rising. I'm going to tell you there was a Premier in this province who did that, William Grenville Davis, member from Brampton, in September 1975. I want to find the exact name of the gas tax. In September 1975, Premier Davis passed a law which froze the price of gasoline in this province for 60 days. He did that. He froze the price of gasoline in this province. He was not afraid of the oil barons. He was prepared to be interventionist when it was needed by the people of this province, unlike the present administration, which, at the first sign of a bark from the oil industry, runs in the opposite direction. Bill Davis didn't run in the opposite direction; he took the oil giants on and froze prices for 60 days.

Hon Mr Jackson: He was so macho he bought one of them.

Mr Bradley: The member for Burlington South is quite right in his intervention. He said he was so interested in this subject that the Conservative government bought 25% of Suncor at that time and there it was. He understood what the problem was and he froze those gas prices.

I know there are people on the government benches who will say, "That was just an election ploy because there was going to be an election." I didn't believe then and I don't believe today that it was an election ploy. I think Premier Davis genuinely wanted to take on the oil giants, unlike Premier Harris, who runs at the first chance of having a confrontation with the oil barons of this province, the oil giants.

What can we do within provincial jurisdiction? Bill Davis said one thing we could do: We could freeze the price of gasoline when it gets up there. You can pass a law doing that. But there's a more long-term procedure that can be followed, and that is the procedure of passing a predatory pricing law in this province, totally within the jurisdiction of Ontario. We can do it. I know the member for Quinte would like to bring in such a bill, but we all know where that's being blocked; that's being blocked in the Premier's office. The best he's allowed to do is bring in a resolution that will point the finger somewhere else, at the federal government in this case. Yet he knows and I know and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations knows and my good friend Noble Villeneuve knows as well that the provincial government has the power to bring in a predatory pricing law.

What does that do? That prevents the major oil companies from selling to their own dealers at a lower price than the independents, because what happens when they do that is that they end up putting the independent retailers out of business, and we know that when the small independent retailers are put out of business it allows the huge oil corporations a free rein to charge whatever they see fit for gasoline for motorists in this province.

I'm looking for the law. The government has been in power for four years. Many times I've called for it. I thought even a private member might bring it forward, because the only way it's going to pass is if the government initiates it and has approval. I'm looking for it and I can't find it. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations won't bring forward such a bill. So I implore my friends in the backbenches of the Conservative Party and some in cabinet to speak to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to approach the Premier, who has been a pussycat with the oil barons so far, and say, "Look, what we should have is a predatory pricing law." That would save gas money and film for the member for Scarborough Centre, who wouldn't then have to run around with his camera pretending he was having some effect on the gasoline prices in this province.

I have a very good editorial from the Hamilton Spectator. This must have been before the Toronto Sun took it over, because it was critical of the government. This won't happen any more; don't worry, you're safe now. On Tuesday, May 19, 1998, there was a great editorial on the so-called gas-busters. It says:

"Welcome to summer. The calendar says it's not official yet. But other unofficial indicators tell us it's here. The weather. Air quality. Long hot weekends. Gas prices.

"No one knows for sure why, but gas prices seem to go up around this time of year, specifically before weekends and especially before a long weekend. Some suspicious people wonder if the major oil companies have a wink-and-a-nod agreement about this. But the oil companies and the federal government assure us that's not the case. It's just a free market at work. Well, if government and oil companies say so, it must be true, right?

"Still, some people remain skeptical. Among them, apparently, are Ontario's consumer minister, Dave Tsubouchi, and his boss, Mike Harris. Last summer Harris made a big noise about his belief that Ontario consumers are being `price-gouged' at the gas pumps. Of course, that's about all he did, other than defer responsibility to Ottawa.

"Then there's Dave Tsubouchi. You may remember him as the colourful social services minister who, early in his Harris government career, suggested few people were so poor they couldn't afford a can of tuna. Now he's the man charged with consumer protection in Ontario.

"Not long ago, Tsubouchi met with oil company representatives and during the meeting assured them that `it's the government's philosophical approach not to interfere with markets.'"

I digress from the editorial. When he had a chance to meet with them did he say, "Stop gouging the people of Ontario"? No, he said, "It's the government's philosophical approach not to interfere with markets." So there was the answer, there was the tough answer for the oil barons in this province. But I want to go on with the editorial from the independent newspaper called the Hamilton Spectator.

"But Dave has never been one to let consistency be his guide. Apparently he's had some kind of epiphany and now is going to press the feds `to take action and to impress upon the oil companies that this kind of thing just isn't acceptable.'

"If you find Tsubouchi's two positions contradictory, you're not alone. But that's not even the strangest twist in this story. Late last week, the minister appointed four Tory MPPs to a Consumer Watchdog Commission. Hamilton West's Lillian Ross is among them, along with Halton North's Ted Chudleigh, Doug Rollins of Quinte and Dan Newman, Scarborough Centre.

"Just call them `gas-busters.' Among other noble pursuits, these four will keep a sharp eye on gas prices. And if they see unreasonable jumps in retail prices, they'll...what? Presumably the petrol police will report back to their boss. Presumably Tsubouchi will then use this irrefutable evidence to...what? The provincial government refuses to do anything to fix gas prices, saying it's Ottawa's job. Ottawa and the oil companies say there's no price fixing, but Ontario is free to move alone to fix prices if it wants to.

"Can you say `Useless public relations exercise'?

"At a news conference to unveil this silly idea, the MPPs involved posed for the cameras, grim-faced, planted in front of gas station price signs. Presumably, this is to show they mean business. Or perhaps they're just contemplating how good this will look on their resumé."

I agree with the Hamilton Spectator. What an excellent editorial that was. I think that captured better than anyone the fact that this government intends to do nothing.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): What have you done, Jim? What has Jim done?

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke-Humber asks me what we would like to see done and what I want to see done. I have implored this government, I have encouraged this government, I have urged this government, because it's within the purview of government, to take action, to have the minister bring forward a bill which would deal with this problem of predatory gas pricing in this province. If they wanted to get really tough, they could do what Bill Davis did in 1975.

2350

The small province of Prince Edward Island has decided to regulate the price of gasoline in their province. Over 20 jurisdictions in the United States have brought in pricing legislation. All these examples reveal that Mike Harris could take action if he had the political will to do so. He could pass a law right here today, within the jurisdiction of Ontario. All we get, though, is pure tokenism from a posturing Premier who doesn't seem to really care about the price of gasoline in this province, from the actions he has taken.

As I say, I'm still looking for that great initiative that Bill Davis took in 1975. I've found what it's called now. Here it is, because I know the member for Etobicoke-Humber is waiting for the name of the bill. It was an Ontario law, an act entitled the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act. That's what it was. Premier Davis froze prices for an extended period of time.

So if you really want to do something about those gas prices, we know it's within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Three things can be done. The easiest, the most obvious, is to ensure that there's a free market, because there isn't. If the major oil companies are pushing the independents out of business, then you, the apostles of the free market system, should be coming forward with a bill which would ensure there's competition. I agree with that. I would like to see maximum competition, but you don't get it as long as the major oil companies are putting the boots to the independents in this province by being in a position where they can sell gasoline at the wholesale level to their own stations at a price lower than to the independents, therefore making the independents uncompetitive and forcing them out of business. If we want to ensure that we have competition, then surely this government would be prepared to bring forward such legislation. So that's one easy thing.

The second thing is passing a bill when the gas price goes up - not now; it's down now - a bill that would be entitled the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act, as Bill Davis did in 1975 with a Conservative government.

The third thing is the Premier calling the oil barons on the carpet and telling them they should not be pushing the people of this province around, because the gas-busters are simply having no effect at all. The so-called commissioners have no effect at all.

Mr Galt: They are in Quinte, It's down to 36.9 cents. When have you seen gas prices cheaper?

Mr Bradley: The member for Northumberland makes my point exactly. I'm glad he intervened this evening, because he and his colleagues, particularly the member for Northumberland, are first in line to accept credit, last in line to accept responsibility. If the gas prices go way up, he will be hiding in the corner pointing his finger at the federal government; if the gas prices go down, he'll be there, large as life, taking credit for it. He is totally inconsistent, totally without any credibility, when it comes to this particular issue, because he will not ensure that his colleagues in the cabinet bring forward a bill which will ensure fair gas prices in this province. So the bluff of the Harris government has been called on this issue. What they intend to do is absolutely nothing. They will do nothing at all to ensure that gas prices are going to be fair in this province.

Mr Galt: Tell us about Patti Starr.

Mr Ford: Jim, were you working with Patti Starr?

Mr Bradley: If you want to talk about the former president of the Conservative Party of Ontario, R. Alan Eagleson, I'd be happy to have you get up and speak of R. Alan Eagleson, with your interjections. But I don't think we should, because we're dealing with the gasoline tax and how the gasoline tax is spent in this province.

Much of that could be used to fund hospitals. If we had the gas taxes collected appropriately, we would perhaps have the money to fund the ongoing operation of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in the city of St Catharines, a hospital that Mike Harris wishes to close, despite his promise which says, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." Yet the Hotel Dieu Hospital is unfortunately going to come under the axe by the commission in Ontario established under the draconian Bill 26, which was pushed through this Legislature despite the fact that it changed or created differences in some 48 pieces of legislation. They wanted to push this bill through and then set up new rules so they could do so after.

Even though the clock in the assembly says about seven minutes to midnight, Mr Speaker, I know your watch is very close to midnight, so I will conclude my remarks. Do I just adjourn the debate so I can keep talking after?

The Deputy Speaker: The time will be reserved for you.

Mr Bradley: Thank you kindly, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to advise you that the clock that a lot of you will be looking at is at least five minutes slow. I assure you that it's very close to 12 o'clock midnight. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 2358.