Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mrs Fawcett: Constituency week is over, and the Treasurer has had time to consider the $679-million worth of spending cuts to come. I am concerned about the impact of these cuts on the often underappreciated conservation authorities, which are so important to protecting the landscape of Ontario.

The Ministry of Natural Resources cut transfer payments by $4.5 million to fund its own constraint targets in the spring of 1991; $1.35 million was cut to meet the fall 1991 constraint, and an additional $2.5-million cut is expected.

Operational budget cuts have a human cost. In this instance, the foot soldiers of environmental protection are being put out of work. I would remind the House that every $1 of transfer payments to a conservation authority is matched by $2 from other sources.

The 38 conservation authorities are angry that the government ignored a long-standing agreement between them and the Ministry of Natural Resources. This agreement states that provincial transfer payments to conservation authorities will not be altered as a result of any general constraint that is applied to the Ministry of Natural Resources unless the government applies a constraint to all government ministries and all local government transfer payments.

Are the conservation authorities being made the victims of the ministry's own internal problems? Will the Treasurer continue to allow the conservation authorities to be treated in this manner -- no consultation, and policy changes without notice?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Witmer: On Thursday, November 7, the Minister of Labour released his long-awaited, much-feared package of proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act. I want to tell the minister about the impact of his announcement thus far.

Last week I received many calls and letters from companies which are reconsidering their future in Ontario if these proposals become law. However, I want to mention the impact in my community specifically. One employer called to tell me that he would be moving to the United States and that 100 jobs would be lost within a year. Others called to say that they were downsizing, while others said that all new growth would now occur in the United States, as opposed to Ontario.

Another letter stated:

"The owner has stated unequivocally that he will shut this plant down and put 150 employees out of work if such legislation is adopted.

"The NDP government is obviously shooting itself in the foot. However, the pain of this self-inflicted injury will be borne by the employers of small and medium-sized business. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are in the balance. The NDP government must be made to back off on this most critical issue."

Instead of creating further obstacles to employment and economic growth in Ontario, I would urge the minister to do an economic impact study to determine how many more jobs and how much more investment will be lost if these amendments are passed as he has proposed.

CAT SCANNER

Ms Harrington: When I arrived back in my constituency of Niagara Falls last week I was almost swamped by the volume of mail from my constituents. I have here almost 1,000 letters addressed to the Minister of Health. These letters were addressed by hand and stamped, the majority of them, and sent to me within a one-week period. I will quote:

"Dear Ms Lankin:

"As a resident of the Niagara Falls area and a consumer of health care, I wish to advise you of my deep concern over the lack of CT scan services available in my community. I am of the opinion that the merits of locating a CT scan in Niagara Falls are being overlooked and request that your immediate attention be directed to correcting the situation. Personally, and as a member of this community, I want you to know that I am in support of locating a CT scan at the Greater Niagara General Hospital."

That is the letter I have received. The community demand is absolute. The issue of a CT scan in Niagara is a priority. The Greater Niagara General Hospital has the most emergency outpatient visits of any comparable hospital across Ontario; that is, 70,000 in 1990. Further, there is a five-month waiting period for CT scans across Niagara. This is the longest waiting period in Ontario.

We must stop the cross-border shopping for CT scans. I ask the minister to act.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Today, I wish to congratulate the women of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses who presented their annual lobby here at Queen's Park. This lobby is built upon a tradition of deep respect for those who have suffered and a continued awareness and poignant reminders of all that needs to be done.

I stand in the House today with deep sorrow as I remember Ottawa's latest victim of violence, Patricia Allen, who died on the street on the morning of Wednesday, November 13. Her death has focused again our communities' outrage and disbelief that such violence is in our midst.

This disbelief and outrage, however, will not solve the problem. We must continue to remind the government of the importance of stabilizing the system so that those who work within it can maximize their effectiveness. Salaries for shelter workers and pay equity for shelter workers must be a top priority. We must remind this government that supervised access must be provided in communities right across this province and cutbacks to legal aid must not be made.

I commit myself to support the priorities placed before us by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses this morning. I urge the government to share my commitment. The answer to their question, "When?" must be, "Now."

1340

ROBERT MCCLURE

Mr Jackson: We have all suffered a terrible loss with the passing last week of Dr Robert McClure, a man who was as famous for his opinions on international issues as he was for his singular achievements.

What was truly remarkable about this unlikely missionary was that while he never attained a theological degree, he preached all his life with his actions as a medical physician, taking risks daily in some of the most dangerous areas of the world as he reached out to personally touch the lives of countless thousands with his medical experience and his healing presence. I had the privilege of first meeting him in 1961 as a guest preacher in our church.

As the first lay moderator of the United Church of Canada, Robert McClure brought to his new job a fresh and unsettling perspective. His activism soon earned for him the respect of all, even of those who disagreed with him. As one Canadian church historian has said, "McClure became such an icon in the United Church that it was impossible to publicly criticize him. It would have been like criticizing Mother Teresa." Even during his lifetime, three churches were dedicated to him.

What I found very inspiring about Robert were his self-assured personal convictions and his unswerving dedication to causes he believed in, irrespective of what was maintained by the conventional wisdom of the moment. In his later years, Robert was a highly popular speaker who shared his insights and life experiences with audiences eager for his revitalizing enthusiasm for life.

Vigorous, entertaining, courageous and sometimes outrageous, this is the Robert McClure, the modern Canadian saint, we will always remember. On behalf of all members of the Ontario Legislature, I wish to convey our condolences to Robert's wife, Amy, and to his entire family. May the memory of the person and vision of Dr Robert McClure continue to inspire all of us.

BREAST-FEEDING

Mr Frankford: "Health Activists Win Battle to Ban Bottle Feeding" and "Companies Forbidden to Distribute Infant Milk Formula in World's Hospitals" are the headlines of an article in the Globe and Mail of November 9, 1991.

Breast-feeding of infants is one of the most important health measures. Breast-feeding protects against infectious diseases and is regarded as a keystone of child health. The advantages of breast-feeding regarding environmental impact and other health benefits are well documented. The consequent saving of costs to the health care system is welcome to governments as they struggle against budget pressures.

As the article in the Globe and Mail suggests, this is a worldwide issue, not something that is confined to less-developed countries. In industrialized countries like ours, children need the same protection.

It is now 10 years since Canada joined all other nations, with the exception of the United States, in voting for the World Health Organization's code of marketing of breast milk substitutes, and yet the federal government has still failed to implement it with legislation. I hope that all hospitals in Ontario and other provinces are voluntarily complying with the code and that the federal and provincial governments will take immediate action to make the withdrawal of infant formula sampling by hospitals permanent.

NIAGARA REGION

Mr Bradley: I rise to bring the members of the Legislature up to date on the lack of necessary action on the part of this government for the people of the Niagara region.

First of all, we have already heard from the member for Niagara Falls, who has once again brought to the attention of the members of the Legislature an item I have raised on many occasions, and that is the need for another CAT scanner in the Niagara region to service the health needs of the people who reside in that part of the province.

We know of the long waiting list of five to six months; we know that the scanner is an essential tool for the diagnosis of disease and for other purposes. One has to wonder why, in all these months, the government has not moved on it.

Second, there is a concern -- speaking of moves -- about the move of the Ministry of Transportation to the city of St Catharines. People in St Catharines are now quite worried that in fact this is not going to happen because of some of the statements they are hearing from members of the government side, particularly the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet.

Third, the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines is the regional dialysis unit for the entire Niagara region. It is overcrowded. The only thing that makes it possible for people to exist is the excellent staff in that unit at that particular hospital. They hope the government will give favourable consideration to its funding.

Farmers in the Niagara region besieged the member for Lincoln, who was deposed last week as Chair of a committee by the Premier, and expressed then their views about the concerns they have about the needs of farmers in the Niagara region being ignored by this government.

I think I was gypped on the amount of time I was supposed to have. It just seems I could not possibly have run out of time like that.

The Speaker: We all need more.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr Turnbull: Last Friday, I participated in a United Way presentation by Suncor/Sunoco. The ceremony wrapped up a western theme campaign which produced 87% overall employee participation and 38 Leaders of the Way, a special category for donors who give $1,000 or more.

The total amount raised by the 717 participating employees was an astonishing $151,000. Because the company has a corporate policy of 75% matching donation, the total cheque given to the United Way was an impressive $261,000. These results place Suncor/Sunoco among the top 10 companies in Metro Toronto. Not only did most employees donate their money, but many gave their time and talents to encourage others to donate. Special mention must be made of executive vice-president Doug MacKenzie, the driving force behind the successful campaign.

The generosity of these men and women is an example to us all. They embody the very best of the Canadian spirit -- caring for others, sharing what they have in tough economic times and expecting no personal reward. Their generosity means that next year some families, youth and elderly will all have their lives made a little easier, be offered a helping hand when needed or receive some food, counselling or other comfort.

On behalf of all of the needy in our community, I want to say thank you to Suncor and all its employees who participated in the United Way drive. The results of their tremendous efforts are very impressive. I congratulate them on a job well done.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Mills: This morning in Oshawa I had the privilege of addressing the unit 7 Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving at their area conference. I must say it was very encouraging to be among so many young people, perhaps 200, who have made such a commitment among students to combat impaired driving and drinking and driving. It was encouraging to see their enthusiasm.

I remember years ago when we got invited anywhere, there used to be on the bottom of the invitation BYOB, which meant "Bring your own Beer." The students tell me today that is still in effect, but believe it or not, it means "Bring your own banana." That may seem strange, but these young people have taken to drinking milk, bringing a banana and making milkshakes there.

Despite the lack of alcohol, they still enjoy themselves. They still have a good time. They still enjoy wonderful friendship with each other. At this time I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the commitment of our young people in their drive to reduce impaired driving. I think they should be commended for it.

Hon Mr North: Mr Speaker, I understand that I have unanimous consent from the House to make some remarks in honour of Ontario's Corps d'élite award winners.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

CORPS D'ÉLITE AWARDS

Hon Mr North: We have five distinguished visitors in the House today. All of them are dedicated volunteers and professionals who have made outstanding contributions to recreation in Ontario. In recognition of their achievements, today they will receive the province's highest honour in recreation, a Corps d'élite Ontario Award.

Please join me in welcoming Bob Arnot of Kitchener; Mrs Joyce Cavill of Kitchener, who is here for her late husband Peter Cavill; Dean McCubbin of North Bay, and Jenny Sheps and Joan Woodland, both of Toronto.

All five of the recipients have shown through their commitment to recreation that quality recreation is much more than a hobby, a pastime or a luxury. It is essential to human development and wellbeing at every stage of life. Each one of the Corps d'élite recipients has significantly increased recreational opportunities for Ontarians.

In a few minutes I will escort the five recipients to the Lieutenant Governor's suite, where they will receive the awards in ceremonies presided over by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you and the honourable members to join with me now in showing our appreciation of all recreation volunteers and professionals by honouring Bob Arnot, Mrs Joyce Cavill, Dean McCubbin, Jenny Sheps and Joan Woodland.

Mr McClelland: I join my colleague opposite, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, in extending on behalf of our party our congratulations to the recipients of the Corps d'élite award.

Certainly the recipients today are well honoured, inasmuch as they are chosen by their peers who are engaged professionally in recreation. It is certainly a great honour to be recognized in any event, but when you are selected by your peers I think it adds to that honour.

The contribution made by people involved in recreation, both professionally and on a volunteer basis, is in my view inestimable. Certainly the contribution made to communities large and small right across this province means the quality of life is enhanced and enriched a great deal by the efforts of the people who are represented by the award recipients today. I think in terms of the number of young lives engaged in positive pursuits, and not only young lives but those who have their lives steered in a very positive direction. Indeed, throughout the course of their entire lives, recreation is something that is available for people of all ages and that greatly enriches the quality of life in this province.

To the recipients we offer our congratulations and wish you well in your continued endeavours. I know you receive them in some sense on behalf of your many colleagues who have worked with you both professionally and in a volunteer capacity. We wish you well, and continued success. Our best wishes, and again our heartfelt congratulations for a job well done.

1350

Mr Arnott: I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to the five Ontarians who will today receive the prestigious Corps d'élite Ontario Award for their outstanding involvement in recreation that has had a significant impact on recreation in Ontario.

The Corps d'élite program was first introduced by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in 1985. It is designed to acknowledge those Ontario residents from all sectors of the community whose voluntary efforts have had a major impact on the development of recreation in this province, and to recognize outstanding efforts by those volunteers or recreational professionals who contribute in a volunteer capacity to the development of recreation at either the provincial or regional level.

The recipients of today's awards are Bob Arnot of Kitchener, the late Peter Cavill of Barrie, Dean McCubbin of North Bay in the great riding of Nipissing, and Jennie Sheps and Joan Woodland, both of North York. Each of these individuals has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to recreation in our province and it is fitting that their unselfish contribution will be recognized in this significant way.

I am sure all members of the House will join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to these dedicated citizens of Ontario, and especially to Joyce Cavill who will be accepting the posthumous award to her late husband, Peter Cavill, who beginning in 1966 served as director of recreation for the 33 municipalities in Simcoe county.

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to seek consent to pay tribute to one of our colleagues, the member for Carleton East.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

MEMBER FOR CARLETON EAST

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, very briefly, I would simply like to take this opportunity this afternoon to advise all members who may not be aware of the fact that earlier this morning, in your presence, the Lieutenant Governor conferred on our good friend and colleague the Deputy Speaker and member for Carleton East the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea.

I simply want to say, as one of Mr Morin's colleagues in the Liberal Party, that I was delighted to be able to join with him, yourself and other members of the Legislature on that occasion, as well as with his good wife, Paula, who is in your gallery this afternoon, and to say that those of us who have known the member for Carleton East over the years have known him to be a man who has a keen interest not just in politics, but as a result of his military past in matters of military activity as well.

I would say in conclusion that this is a very fitting tribute to one of our colleagues. For me, the ceremony this morning had all the hallmarks that Mr Morin has brought to his parliamentary duties, namely, and most especially, the hallmarks of civility and decency, where he shows a very high and good example to the rest of us.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I add my congratulations to Gilles Morin and his family on the significant achievement he has been able to receive this morning. I have known Gilles for the last five or six years. He represents the riding adjacent to mine in Carleton in eastern Ontario, and he has shown that he has an understanding of the people in that area, who have re-elected him on three occasions. His past service in the armed forces no doubt adds credibility to his long and distinguished career. Our party adds its congratulations to him.

Mr Mills: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, and it is indeed an honour, to stand here this afternoon on behalf of the government and add our congratulations to the member for Carleton East.

I must say that when I came here a little over a year ago, I was not aware of many members here who had served in the military. I quickly made the acquaintance of the member for Carleton East in a very wonderful sort of way. He came up to me and offered all kinds of little titbits of advice that have stood me in great stead in the short time I have been here, and I thank him for that.

It is regrettable that although I was to be at that ceremony this morning, I had to be in Oshawa for a meeting and could not be there. I apologize that I was not there, but while I was giving my speech in Oshawa, I was at the same time thinking of that ceremony here this morning. I know how important that is to the member and his family.

Gilles served in the Royal 22nd Regiment. Somewhat uniquely as an anglophone, I spent six months with that regiment. I would just like to say that if we could get that spirit in Canada today, it would go a long way to solving the differences between anglophones and francophones, because really where people come together is in the military.

Certainly I recognize the member's service as a machine-gun officer in the Korean War. That was no easy time. He survived that war and is here and is recognized today with a medal at last; it has long been coming and is long overdue, and I offer him our congratulations.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, can I seek unanimous consent from this House to have a moment when we talk about racism and the problems that occurred over this weekend?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cousens: I would like to make a statement on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus with regard to the desecration of the Har Tikvah synagogue in Brampton over this past weekend.

First of all, having been talking with the member for Willowdale, I would like to join with him in the comment he has been able to pass on concerning the commendation we have for the minister for visiting the synagogue and for the sentiments she expressed yesterday with regard to racism and Naziism: that they are not welcomed in our city or in our province or our country. I give her tribute for the concern she showed.

In our country, racism should not be tolerated under any circumstances. I would like to commend our police services right across this province to pull out the stops and find the people who were involved in this incident. May they then be given full rights under the law so that they are quickly brought to justice and dealt with without delay. As to the problems that are created for all Jewish communities across our country and our province, it just sends a terrible shudder through all of them when something like this happens. Let's hope we can deal with this incident and deal with it well, efficiently and successfully.

We need only to draw upon examples such as this incident in Brampton, Keegstra in Alberta, David Duke's recent race for governor in Louisiana and the re-emergence of neo-Naziism in Germany to be reminded that racism can affect us all. Within Metropolitan Toronto, multiculturalism is also under attack. We see an increase in acts of violence against minorities stemming from fear and intolerance towards other races. As a society, we cannot move forward until we eradicate racism in all its forms.

1400

Historically racism has resulted from fear, socioeconomic disparities, religious doctrines and philosophical ideals. By now we should have learned our lessons. Unfortunately some have not learned. Those continuing to advocate racist thinking and actions only stunt our growth and understanding of other cultures.

I believe that overcoming racism begins by confronting this issue, first, on a personal level and, second, by influencing those around us. This message must be expanded to our educational system and all levels of people with whom we have dealings.

As members of this House, may we personally continue to give the best example we can in our homes and our communities and bring leadership to this province, so that when we say Canada and Ontario are places where people are welcome, we are not just lipping the words but mean them from the bottom of our hearts. May we set an example for the rest of the world. We have the chance. May the blight that happened this weekend be one of the last we ever see in this province.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I rise on behalf of the government to express our outrage over the desecration of the Har Tikvah synagogue in Brampton. I went there yesterday to witness at first hand the desecration of the synagogue. I met with members of the community and members of the Toronto Jewish community as well. I was horrified by the hatred that came through those messages on the wall of this very historic building. I am also saddened by the pain that was visibly felt by the Jewish community.

I spoke to some of the members of the congregation who expressed that they had come from many parts of the world, from Chile, from Europe, from Israel and from the United States, and the reason they came to Ontario was they felt they were coming to a place that was harmonious and safe to live in, where they could express their religion and culture.

It is particularly disturbing that this attack came in the midst of the memorial services on Remembrance Day for all the brave men and women who said no to fascism and died fighting for a just and equal society. This racist and anti-Semitic attack is an act of disrespect for our loved ones who died so we could have a better tomorrow.

Unfortunately the attack also coincided with the Holocaust remembrance events which began in early November with the event called Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. This act of desecration is a chilling reminder that racism exists so close to home.

This government will not tolerate such despicable acts of racism. We share the pain and anguish felt by the Jewish community and all of us who believe in social justice. An injury to one is an injury to all. To eradicate racism is a top priority of this government. I thank the member from the opposition who shares this concern with us. The establishment of an anti-racism secretariat with new direction and funding resources is part of that commitment.

I will continue to monitor the situation and work very closely with the Jewish community and other communities which share our feeling that we must combat racism. All members of the House must work together to eradicate racism and anti-Semitism. All of us must work towards that ideal society we want to share and have for our children.

Mr Offer: The actions taken last Saturday night against the Har Tikvah synagogue in Brampton are shocking. Anti-Semitic slogans and the swastika on the walls of the synagogue bring back a terror and a horror beyond words. These are actions which rip at the very fabric of the Jewish community. They bring back haunting memories of six million Jewish men, women and children whose lives were brutally taken from them.

I believe the condemnation of the actions of last Saturday is not just voiced by the Jewish community but indeed by society at large. When we see and read the media reports, we all ask why. What is it that moves a few to act this way? What is it that prompts one to act so frighteningly and with such hatred? We know these are the actions of a few. We know society abhors such actions and recoils in horror. Nevertheless it goes on.

The actions last Saturday at Har Tikvah synagogue were specific in nature, but we know they connote a much broader problem. This is an issue of racism in its most hideous form. As a society we must collectively work to combat racism. It is not unique to one group or another. It is a disease which, when afflicted on one, affects all. Examples abound and the hurt continues, but the resolve to combat racism grows. Men, women and children living together, understanding and respecting each other must continue to flourish. Above all, there must be a willingness to speak out and raise one's voice when a wrong has been committed. Last Saturday's actions were monstrous in their scope and intent. They force us to look at ourselves, where we are and where we want to go.

Together we will remain strong and continue the struggle against racism. Together we stand with the congregation at Har Tikvah, Rabbi Lander and all of those who have been specifically impacted. Their horror and sadness are shared by all of us. Their horror and sadness are our horror and sadness.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Sorbara: My question is to the Treasurer. His announcement last week struck another very serious blow to the economic confidence we so desperately need in Ontario. The Treasurer announced that the budget he presented last spring was in error yet again with a shortfall in revenue of more than $2 billion. I want to put this in some sort of context.

Members will recall that the budget had about a $10-billion deficit. On October 2 the Treasurer announced in this House that the budget was wrong and that we had to find $460 million in order to make it right again. At that time he said there were "enormous pressures on the expenditures, but our revenues were almost spot on." "Spot on" has become famous.

On October 3 the Treasurer said the numbers indicated that "our revenues are as we forecast in the spring budget." Now we find, with a finger pointed to the federal government, there is a shortfall of $2.1 billion. In consideration of this outrage to the taxpayers of this province, what does the Treasurer have to say to them? How does he explain the fact that his budget has suffered yet another fatal blow? And could he tell us where this money is going to be made up?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a good question, as someone on the other side commented, except that it is not terribly accurate in all the implications that are built into it.

When I made my statements in the Legislature earlier, I forewarned that income taxes in Ontario collected by the federal government had historically been very volatile and that we did not know what those numbers would be. I said that our own source revenues that we forecast and collect ourselves appeared to be virtually spot on. The member opposite should be clear about that. What were inaccurate in the forecasting were the federal government numbers on what our provincial income taxes in this year are likely to be and would likely be for 1990, not the numbers that we forecast ourselves in the budget. Our numbers are derived from the federal forecasts.

1410

Mr Sorbara: For the Treasurer to make light of what he said and simply suggest it was a $2-billion error and after all "these things are rather volatile," in the serious economic times we are confronting right now is an insult to this House and to the people of this province.

There are really only three ways in which the Treasurer can deal with a budget that has now crumbled. He can do what he did on October 2 and say he is going to transfer some $500 million to next year -- that is really doing a lot, I say to the Treasurer -- he can reduce expenditures or he can increase taxes.

We have seen the strategy to reduce expenditures. The Attorney General has put off the child and family support program. The Minister of Health has transformed herself into a latter-day Frank Miller. We have to close hospitals all over the province. We are about to have cutbacks in education. We are about to have cutbacks in social service support in this province.

Could the Treasurer come clean with the people of the province and tell us what he is going to do to recover the $460 million he needs in order to stay within the $10-billion deficit he created last spring?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is my intention to announce in the House -- tomorrow, I hope, but certainly this week -- the ways in which we intend to cope with this latest news on what our income tax revenues will be for 1990 and 1991. It is a two-year problem, not a one-year problem, I might add. It is my intention to announce in the House tomorrow exactly what actions will be taken.

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer said it is a two-year problem. It is not a two-year problem; it is a four-year problem. It is a fact that this province is now in the grip of an NDP government that does not have a clue how to stimulate this economy.

The Treasurer said he is going to tell us where he is going to make the next cuts in programs tomorrow. We anticipate it is going to be in Health. We anticipate it is going to be in Education. We anticipate it is going to be in Colleges and Universities. As with every other cut this government has put into place, we anticipate it is going to hurt the poor and the most vulnerable most of all. It is certainly not going to help the civil servants.

We learn as well that the Treasurer, notwithstanding the economic problems, spent about $250 million on consultants. In view of the fact that the people of this province, if they agree on one thing and one thing alone, agree that there cannot be an addition to the tax burden, will the Treasurer simply assure this House now and the people of Ontario that when he reports this week on how he is going to make up this $2 billion, he will not inflict another tax on the people of this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is amazing. The member opposite is insisting of course that we not impose any new taxes. He has insisted in the past that we not allow the deficit to go beyond what it is now. I am not sure what room the member opposite is going to leave for me.

I would like to put in perspective the forecast numbers that the member opposite refers to. When his government was in office in 1988-89, the federal government's variance with its forecast was $1.490 billion. His government's variance was over $1 billion out in 1988-89. When his government was in office in 1989-90, it was $882 million out on what it thought the income tax revenues would be for Ontario. For the member opposite to try to kid the people of this province that our budget is in disarray because of federal government forecasting on income tax revenues is simply unfair and untrue.

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer's budget is in disarray because this economy is falling apart, and while it is falling apart, he is sitting there pointing the finger at the federal government and the previous government. I want to remind him of one fact. We were out in our forecast somewhat, but we were out on the positive side. We got $1 billion more out of the economy than we had forecast because we had unprecedented economic growth.

The Speaker: Is this your second question? Would you please indicate to whom you are addressing your question?

Mr Sorbara: I want to put it to the Treasurer as simply as I can. The only way to solve his budgetary problem and the only way to solve the economic problems is for the government to bring forward programs that stimulate economic growth in this province. We now have 10% of our people who are languishing, looking for opportunities to work. We are casting our eyes aside from 10% of our people who are anxious to participate. In every other province in Canada there is a growth in the employment statistics. It is only in Ontario where the employment figures simply get worse and worse.

Can I ask the Treasurer what plans he has? What is he going to bring forward? What is he going to do to re-establish confidence in the Ontario economy so that investors will invest and create jobs and he can recover the $2 billion in income tax losses because of people not working? That is why he lost the money; what is he going to do to correct it? How is he going to get this economy rolling again?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite makes it appear as though it is just a simple case of the government moving in and doing everything to resolve the problem. He knows, or at least he should know, that the economy of the United States is having a very difficult time as well, and when it has a difficult time, we have a difficult time. I do not think it is unfair finger-pointing to say there is no question that the free trade agreement, the value of the Canadian dollar and high interest rates have had a major impact on the manufacturing and construction sectors in this province.

I remind the member as well that in the last 18 months or so, of all the layoffs in this country, about 80% have occurred in Ontario, and we have about 38% of the workforce. If anyone thinks government can simply move in and put in place programs that will employ those 260,000 people, I wish he would come forward and show me how he can do that, at the same time keeping in mind the admonition from the member opposite that we must not increase taxes and we must not increase the deficit in the province.

Mr Scott: This is a Mike Harris government but Harris doesn't get the salary. This is unfair.

The Speaker: While I am not encouraging interjections, one normally makes them from one's rightful place in the House. It would also be very helpful if the member for St George-St David could assist us in establishing a better atmosphere.

Mr Sorbara: There you have it. The Treasurer, who is also the Minister of Economics in this province, I remind him in case he did not realize it, and the person chiefly responsible for setting economic policy -- the Premier should participate, but he is never here any more. God knows where he is. He certainly does not come to this House to answer questions.

I say to the Treasurer, who is also the Minister of Economics, that he simply cannot say: "Our hands are tied. There's nothing we can do. After all, we had 80% of the job losses during this recession and we didn't anticipate that and, my God, we didn't even anticipate getting elected, so why turn to us?" He cannot say that. He is responsible for taking measures, even powerful, direct interventionist measures, to create employment.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: The Treasurer fully knows his revenues are going to go down and down and down so long as he takes the view that there is nothing we can do. I ask the Treasurer what he says to the people of Windsor -- some of us were in Windsor this weekend -- where there is 14% unemployment, where auto workers, where truckers, where retail shopkeepers, where workers from just about every segment of the economy are looking for an opportunity to get back into the economy and start paying income tax again.

1420

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Sorbara: What does the Treasurer say to the people of Windsor, other than, "Our hands are tied; there is very little we can do; we suffered all these layoffs"? What does he say to them?

Hon Mr Laughren: I will respond to the member, but I would ask people who follow these debates in the Legislature or watch them on television or read them in Hansard to keep in mind what the member opposite is telling us in this place. Number one, he is telling us, "Don't you dare raise taxes one little bit." Then he says, "You must intervene directly in the creation of jobs in this province." He is saying, "On the other hand, you can't raise the deficit at all either, and you cannot increase taxes, but somehow you've got to rebuild the Ontario economy." There is no free lunch, my friend.

Let me tell the member opposite about Windsor and southwestern Ontario. I do not know whether he has bothered to read a recent report by Peat Marwick Thorne based on southwestern Ontario or not. This is part of the summary of its report:

"Southwestern Ontario is a major location for foreign investment. Traditionally, southwestern Ontario is recognized as a diverse centre, with emphasis on manufacturing. Our survey indicates foreign investors also see the area's business environment as most suitable for manufacturing. Southwestern Ontario's strategic location, labour force and quality of life make it appealing to foreign executives looking for a place to locate a new company."

Rather than stand in his place day after day and pretend that the sky is falling, the member opposite should understand that Ontario remains the best place anywhere in which to live, invest and work.

Mr Sorbara: I guess the message to the people in Windsor is that they ought to write Peat Marwick Thorne and perhaps Peat Marwick Thorne has a job for them. I do not know how the Treasurer, when I ask him simply to send some sort of message of hope that maybe things will get on, maybe things will change, can read to me and this House and to the people of Windsor who are looking for work, something from Peat Marwick Thorne about foreign investment and about how wonderful it is there.

What does he say to the people of Thunder Bay, who are saying to us and saying to him, if he would listen, that the forest products industry is fragile, that Abitibi-Price is thinking of closing down a paper plant because it has a difficult time being competitive? What does he say to those industries? What is he prepared to do? What is he bringing forward to make this Ontario economy more competitive? What is he prepared to do for the 10% of the people of Thunder Bay who are also looking for work?

Finally, would he simply answer the question I asked three questions ago: Is there going to be a tax increase or is there not going to be a tax increase as a result of this latest budget fiasco?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the member opposite would not point his finger at Ottawa so often in this place. He accuses me of finger-pointing when he stands up and says there is a budget fiasco, clearly knowing that it is because of provincial income tax revenues forecast by the federal government and collected by the federal government. My friend should make his message consistent, because that is not what he has been doing.

I do not know of any government that would have done what we have already done in a year under very difficult circumstances. What government would have done what we did in Sault Ste Marie? What government would have done what we did in Elliot Lake or in Kapuskasing, or worked as hard to resolve the problems at UTDC or de Havilland? There is not a government anywhere in this country that has done as much as we have to try and ease the problems because of a very difficult recession in this province.

Mr Harris: I too have a question for the Treasurer. Let me at least congratulate him for one thing: for not adopting the Liberal strategy of spending even more money as a way to get us out of this situation. It is indeed years of that, including the Treasurer's first budget, that has got us into this mess.

We now know that despite the Treasurer's rhetoric with his budget over the past few months, he is facing a $1-billion shortfall. This means, I believe, he has three options: He can increase the deficit, he can hike taxes or he can cut government spending.

He told reporters, I believe, going into last weekend, that making up this billion dollars will require a great deal of blood and sweat and tears. He has been through this weekend; he tells us that tomorrow he is going to tell us about the blood, sweat and tears produced in the way of spending cuts. I wonder if he could tell us today how much more bleeding, sweating and crying the taxpayers of this province are going to be burdened with as a result of his discussions and his look this past weekend.

Hon Mr Laughren: Rather than deal with the statement for tomorrow in a piecemeal way today, I would prefer to wait until all the pieces are in place. I will make a full statement tomorrow in this House, which is where it should be made.

Mr Harris: I think the Treasurer would understand perhaps why we have great difficulty with his government's ability to control spending or in fact to cut spending. We heard his previous announcement, which essentially cut nothing other than transfer payments to somebody else.

Let me get a little more specific. He shelled out $240 million in consulting fees this year alone, yet he intends to cut only 5% from this next year. That means taxpayers will only have to pay out $228 million for consultants, according to the Treasurer's figures in his announcement. With 92,000 civil servants who were given an extra $512 million this year, or a 14% hike in pay alone, how can he justify, with all of that in this past year, $228 million, let alone one cent, for consultants over the next year?

Hon Mr Laughren: When I saw the numbers on the consulting fees earlier, I was concerned too. Certainly one of the areas of ministry expenditures we will be looking at very closely -- and that is already under way -- is the whole question of consulting fees, because I do not disagree with the member opposite that too much is being spent on them. However, having said that, I think it would not be wise to rule out any expenditures on consultants whatsoever, because very often it is the most efficient way to get some expertise brought to focus on a problem.

On the second point of the member's question, dealing with the public sector compensation, I think he would do himself a favour if he would stop using the term 14%. We negotiated an increase of about 5.8% for the public sector last year, and then we told each of the ministries that only 5% would be funded out of the contingency fund and the other 0.8% would have to be found internally. In other words, it would be savings realized from within the ministries.

Mr Harris: It was $512 million, payroll to payroll: 6% negotiations, merit pay -- that is where you get 3% if you show up. Then you have new civil servants, then you have that. The total cost went up 14%; with benefits, 16%. That is the figure, and on top of that you get all the consultants. Let's not confuse the facts.

I am concerned about the Treasurer's ability to cut and where he is going to cut, because he has not had a very good record on it. I suggest that putting this government in charge of cutting its own spending is kind of like putting the arsonist in charge of putting out the fire. We have not seen from them any ability to cut in the right areas.

I would like to ask the Treasurer about another experiment. We saw the $240 million on consultants. I would like to ask him about this one. Here is a little plastic tape-measure. This was given out as a gift by the government, I understand, to all the Ministry of Transportation employees in North Bay. I do not think the Treasurer would single them out as a special favour; I assume it was given out to them all. It has an Ontario logo on it. The box, though, says that it was made in Shanghai, China. I suggest to the Treasurer -- this is what the employees tell me -- that this is 100 centimetres of waste from the government.

If the Treasurer is serious about cutting his spending, will he investigate how many of these little gadgets were given out to civil servants in the province, how much they cost the government of Ontario and why we had to cross-border shop all the way to Shanghai, China, to buy them to give out as little gifts? When are we going to stop this kind of nonsense in government spending?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: I will do as the member has requested and see how many of those were distributed and whether they were distributed across the province or just in the riding of Nipissing. I am not sure of that. I am not drawing any conclusions on that. I can tell the member that I do not doubt there are areas such as this where money could be saved. When I was thinking over the weekend about this whole problem of where we can save money, having followed so closely the final negotiations on the sale of the SkyDome, I became increasingly agitated. My anger became white heat when I thought of the Tories having negotiated that deal in the first place. They helped put us in this position and now they are criticizing us for being there. Those are the facts.

Mr Harris: My party takes no credit for Chuck Magwood and the overruns on the Dome and for the mess I admit this government inherited.

Mr Sterling: Or Don Smith.

Mr Harris: We take no credit for Don Smith, Chuck Magwood and the construction of the Dome. Let's be very clear on that.

My second question is also to the Treasurer. When the Treasurer brought out his budget, the nine other provinces brought in restraint programs. The Treasurer said: "No, we know better than all the other treasurers. We're going on a spending spree."

Today we find out that the nine other provinces are having a reduction in their unemployment levels. The nine other provinces that bit the bullet a year ago and started to restrain government expenditures -- in fact, many of them reduced their deficits -- are seeing a return on that investment. But what are we seeing as a result of the Treasurer's budget here in Ontario? We are seeing rising unemployment, loss of investor confidence and more people hungry and out of work.

There is obviously, it appears to me and most observers in this province, a hole in the bottom of the Treasurer's bucket. He tried to patch it last month with a reallocation. That has not worked, so now he is going to try again, tomorrow, to patch it. Instead of continuing with his patchwork approach, will the Treasurer not agree that his budget last spring was inappropriate, was out of step, was heading in the wrong direction and was part of the problem creating the disaster, and will he sit down and bring in a whole new budget for this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I remain convinced today as much as I was in the spring that at a time when Ontario was slipping into a very serious recession what was needed was exactly what we did. We put into place an anti-recession package that created 14,000 jobs, and when we add the local component, it is probably up to 20,000 jobs. I know the member opposite would have liked to have seen us add another 20,000 or some such number to the unemployment rolls by laying off civil servants. I do not know; he has never given us a number. I think for us to have simply made the recession worse with a severe restraint budget last spring would have been exactly the opposite of what this province needed at that time.

Mr Harris: It was the exact opposite of the nine other treasurers in the nine other provinces. They are all doing better than we are, but the Treasurer is convinced he is right. He is the only one in the province who is convinced of that. The Treasurer talks about creating 14,000 jobs with a $10-billion deficit. We have lost 260,000 private sector jobs in this province and we have 1.3 million people now on social assistance. What is he doing and what is he talking about? His big feature seems to be new labour legislation. This is what he is bringing labour and business together to discuss. Will the Treasurer tell us how many new jobs he thinks will be created by the new labour legislation he is working on with his government?

Hon Mr Laughren: In his preamble the member opposite talked about other provinces versus this province. I ask the member opposite if he talked to Grant Devine when he was talking about his deficit for this year, or whether he talked to his good friend Bill Vander Zalm in British Columbia about the size of his deficit. For the member opposite to imply that this is the only province in Canada that has had fiscal problems is not true. Every province in this country has had fiscal problems.

What we have done consistently from day one is that we have not cooked the books. We have brought out the information as clearly and as openly as we can to share the problem with all the people in this province. That is not what the member's friends in other jurisdictions have done.

Mr Harris: If ever there is any government close to Bill Vander Zalm and Fantasyland, it is the Treasurer and this government. The question was, how many jobs is the Treasurer going to create with his new labour legislation? Studies suggest he is putting an additional 500,000 jobs at risk by proceeding with the labour plans the way he is. I think it is time he admitted the truth. It is not labour legislation; it is job destruction legislation and payback time to Bob White and the big unions.

Will the Treasurer, who should be concerned about jobs in this province and getting tax revenues back up again, fight in cabinet for the Minister of Labour to shelve his labour discussion paper before one more job is lost, and as my document New Directions suggests, bring labour, government and business together for meaningful discussions on competitiveness and why we cannot compete, and together work towards how we can work for more jobs, not arguing about whether they are union jobs or not?

Hon Mr Laughren: I have a very fundamental disagreement with the leader of the third party and his party. We do not believe the answer to the future prosperity of this province lies in driving down both the quality and the price of labour in Ontario. We have never believed that. The leader of the third party seems to think that if we cater to the lowest common denominator out there, our future will be secure. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are determined to engage in a process of economic renewal that will put emphasis on high value added, high-quality employment. That is exactly the direction we said we would go in when we brought down the budget and we are not deviating from that course of action, because I believe therein lies the future prosperity of this province.

ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Treasurer, partly in his role as Treasurer and partly in his role as Deputy Premier. On November 7, as he knows, the report of the investigators on the quality of management and administration at St Michael's Hospital was released. That report put forward a number of recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the $63-million debt which developed at that hospital.

The recommendations clearly said that if St Michael's was to continue, substantially all of its debt must be eliminated and that to continue its debt would result in insolvency. The report also said that the ministry, the Sisters of St Joseph, the board and management must participate in eliminating that debt and recommended that the province participate, through an apportioned debt, and that the Ministry of Health accept responsibility for some $24 million.

The Minister of Health and the Premier have said the government will not accept responsibility for the $24 million over the five-year period recommended. That decision could indeed lead to the insolvency of the hospital. We are facing not only a financial crisis but a crisis of availability of and access to services.

1440

The Speaker: Could the honourable member place her question.

Mrs Sullivan: What protection will the Treasurer put in place to ensure that the services provided by St Michael's and its 129 outreach clinics are available -- if not at St Michael's, then elsewhere -- for those who need them, and what arrangements is he prepared to make to fund those services?

Hon Mr Laughren: The problem at St Michael's is a serious one and the $63-million deficit is serious indeed. The Ministry of Health is prepared and has already started, I believe, to work with St Michael's in an attempt to manage that $63-million deficit. I think the member for Halton Centre would agree -- certainly if not with me, then with her colleague the member for York Centre -- that we simply cannot go across the province bailing out every hospital that has a deficit. To be fair, the St Michael's deficit is substantially more than any other hospital's and is a very serious problem indeed. We are concerned about it and the Ministry of Health is working with the hospital to try to resolve it.

Mrs Sullivan: The question of the deficit is clearly an issue. The question of the services at the hospital and their availability to people in this community is very much an issue.

The other question raised in the report is that of governance and the appropriate role of the board of directors in bearing responsibility for the management of what is a publicly funded private hospital. That issue received extensive attention in the investigators' report. As a result of this crisis, the Sisters of St Joseph may seek to divest their ownership of St Michael's Hospital in a controlled and orderly way.

The option of moving from private ownership to a public hospital status has been exercised on other occasions. We know that option of moving was done at St Joseph's in London and St Francis in Smiths Falls with the help of the Ontario government, help not only from an encouragement point of view but with capital infusions as well. If the government is considering this option, this alternative for St Michael's Hospital, since it clearly is not going to go the "bailout route" even for the $24 million that was asked for and recommended in the report, what initiatives is the government going to take, including what capital commitments over the longer term, in the option of turning a private hospital over to the public sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think it is a serious question and a good question but I do not want to pre-empt any of the negotiations or the work that is going on between the Ministry of Health and St Michael's other than to say -- I believe the member opposite would support this; I know the former Liberal Minister of Health used to say it when the Liberals were in government -- that the hospital boards must be held accountable for their spending and that the government simply cannot bail them out when they have a deficit.

The last I saw, the cumulative deficits were in the neighbourhood of $200 million. This government simply is not prepared to engage in a bailout process for all the hospitals that have deficits. We are simply not going to do it.

SKYDOME

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. This past week he announced the deal for SkyDome in Metropolitan Toronto and exactly how much the taxpayers are going to be fleeced for and the amount of money they will have to put up over the next 22 years in this debenture he announced. I understand the government received some $110 million in cash from the partners who came forward.

I have been involved in this issue for some eight or nine years in Metropolitan Toronto. In my opinion, this is absolutely the worst deal the public has ever seen. I opposed it in the beginning, I opposed it in the middle and I oppose it at the end.

Can the Treasurer buy a little freedom with $110 million? Is he going to apply it to the deficit that the Dome has incurred to date, some $380 million, or is he going to take that $110 million and put it in the general revenue account to try to maintain his $9.7-billion debt?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure I understand the difference in what the member for Etobicoke West is putting to me. I do not disagree with one of his sentiments, that the whole arrangement with SkyDome and the province was outrageous from day one. The member is quoted as saying this is robbery without a gun. If there is no gun, I suggest it is because somebody destroyed the evidence when the original deal was signed by the Tories some years ago.

I know the member for Etobicoke West agrees with me that it was the wrong deal to sign in the first place. I believe the member also believes that when the official opposition was in government, it approved the additions to SkyDome that drove up the cost from the original estimate of $184 million to well over $500 million.

So in some aspects I agree with the member for Etobicoke West: It was a bad deal when it was signed, the Liberals made it worse and we are simply trying to stop the haemorrhaging on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Stockwell: First, the question was, what is the Treasurer going to do with the $110 million? If he cannot tell the difference between retiring the SkyDome debt and the $9.7 billion he has already incurred, then it is very clear he should not be Treasurer.

Second, since I have got to this place, I have written to the Treasurer, his staff and the Premier asking for the documentation so it may be reviewed. If they are not complicit, why is he hiding the deals and why will he not let the public see what they are paying for? This is the question that needs to be asked.

Why, when the minister was in opposition, was he calling for a full public inquiry into the cost of SkyDome? When he has been asked that question now that he is in government, he says it is not necessary.

The taxpayers have been fleeced. The costs having been covered up for so many years in the past by the Liberals, why is it that the Treasurer will not have a full public inquiry to ensure at least one thing, that this kind of debacle never happens again to the taxpayers of Ontario? Why not an inquiry?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the calls for an inquiry came at a time when there were negotiations going on between the consortium and the province in attempting to find a way to sell the Dome. That would have been an inappropriate time to have the inquiry.

I have not seen any indication, nor have I heard anybody accuse anyone of criminal wrongdoing in the arrangements. Once the deal has been completed, I do not think there is any reason why people would not want to show the books to people, assuming confidentiality is maintained for corporate competitive purposes.

The sale proceeds, the $110 million cash and the roughly $40 million to $50 million net present value of the future debentures, which will total $150 million or $160 million, will be applied to reduction of the deficit, not to SkyDome itself. There has been some what I thought was very shabby reporting in one of the tabloids which indicated there was still debt and we would be making interest payments on SkyDome. That is simply not the case. Once this deal has been completed, we will not be continuing to make payments or pay interest on the debt.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West will place his question.

Mr Wiseman: Every time I stand up the chorus enters into the fray.

The minister has said on numerous occasions in the House that we are in a waste crisis in the GTA and that in developing a total waste management strategy it would be irresponsible not to plan for a gap between when long-term sites are available and the closure of Britannia and Keele Valley.

In August she issued minister's orders requiring that municipalities conduct technical studies for lifts on Keele and Britannia and the construction of one or more transfer stations in Durham. Residents in my community have a right to be consulted. We were elected because we promised to be open and honest. Could the minister tell us what kind of consultations have been done on these lifts and on transfer stations? When is she going to meet with the residents affected?

1450

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate the interest of the member for Durham West. I know that his interest in trying to resolve the waste management crisis within the greater Toronto area preceded by some years his election to this place, and his interest has continued.

I am happy to be able to tell the House that officials of my ministry and I are in continuous dialogue with the municipalities and the officials in Durham, Peel and north Metro and that, for example, when the region of Durham asked that, instead of having to implement my order to construct a transfer station, it be given some more time to consider alternatives, we of course agreed to allow the region to do that. This makes the point that minister's orders can be amended as circumstances change. It appears that perhaps some of the estimates and some of the time frames are changing, which is precisely what we are addressing on a regular basis.

My orders to all of the municipalities require that they initiate a public involvement program. I understand that Metro is beginning to do that with the municipality of Vaughan and the region of York, and people in those areas will be involved, will be consulted and will have an opportunity to give us their opinions about how we can prevent a very real crisis of garbage piling up in the streets of the greater Toronto area. That we cannot allow to happen.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Brown: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. I am concerned, as northerners are, with northern health care issues. We are concerned with what is going on with the oncology program at Laurentian. We are concerned about the loss of health care workers at Manitoulin Health Centre and Manitoulin Lodge, for example. We are concerned about many health care issues.

I know the Deputy Premier was in the Sudbury area last Friday meeting with a number of physicians and health care workers in the Sudbury area. They are concerned that one of their number, a specialist, Dr J. P. Donohue, announced that he is moving south. The Sudbury Medical Society tells us that this brain drain is to continue. We in the north are very concerned that we have appropriate specialists and enough specialists in the north. What is the Treasurer going to do not only to keep Dr Donohue in the Sudbury area, but to attract specialists to the area?

Hon Mr Laughren: The second part of the member's question is the most important part, because quite frankly it is not just one doctor. If one doctor decides that he or she is determined to leave northern Ontario, there is not much the government can do about that.

But I take very seriously the question of the provision of medical services in northern Ontario, in particular some specialties. The problem came about when we brought in the $400,000 threshold. It says that once a doctor bills more than $400,000, he or she can only get reimbursed to the tune of two thirds between there and $450,000 and one third beyond $450,000. It seemed to us that those were substantial billings and that they were not inappropriate. I still believe that.

To be very specific about the first part of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin's question, what has happened is that there is already a process being set up in which we are trying to arrange meetings soon with the Ontario Medical Association and the Sudbury Medical Society. I remind the member as well that since the threshold seems to be the problem, it is that same threshold that the Ontario Medical Association agreed to and signed with this province back in June of this year, so we have to involve not just the northern medical community but also the OMA.

Mr Brown: I appreciate the response. My problem is that I think the agreement that the OMA came to with the government of Ontario discriminates against northern doctors for a number of reasons that I think the Treasurer knows and that I am not going to get into right here and now.

The real issue is that the NDP, in its document that it brought before this House in 1990, called for a medical school in northern Ontario. They wanted a school to train and attract doctors. They specifically asked the Treasurer what he was going to do to attract physicians.

We want to know what happened to the medical school. We want to know what happened to the school of pharmacy. We want to know what happened to the other health professions that we are trying to attract to northern Ontario. These questions are not being addressed, and we are finding that the agreement that was struck between the province and the OMA has caused physicians to think about leaving northern Ontario.

We think that is the wrong direction. We think it is schizophrenic. I ask the Treasurer: What happened to the medical school? What happened to the school of pharmacy? What happened to attracting doctors to northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I believe the member for Algoma-Manitoulin understands the pressures under which we find ourselves in funding these kinds of major new programs. I know he appreciates as well the massive infusion of money that went into Elliot Lake, despite our very major fiscal problems in the province.

I say to the member opposite that if the threshold of $450,000 is causing a problem because of unique expenses by northern doctors, then that should be looked at as part of the agreement with the OMA. However, if we are going to contain the costs of medicare in this province in order to save medicare, we simply have to be very tough-minded when it comes to examining all the actions we take which will go some way to containing the costs of medicare. I can tell members that every single action we take to contain the cost of health care in this province will be met with resistance somewhere in the province. I think that is simply a given.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. At 5:30 this morning in the city of Burlington Mrs Kiveli Chadjiioannou was murdered. She died of multiple stab wounds at the hands of her husband. She was 65 years of age.

The community of Burlington, like many communities in this province, is aware that over 11,000 women who are trying to escape domestic violence will be turned away from shelters in this province and will continue to be at risk because there is no room in these shelters for them.

The minister will be aware that every time a woman and her family are turned away they are at continuing risk. Some, like Kiveli Chadjiioannou this morning, will not make it as they try to flee those abusive situations. The minister would be aware, as the former director of the London Battered Women's Advocacy Clinic, how much at risk these women are and how much they are counting on her, as representative of her government, to speak up on their behalf.

Why is it that with that background and with that knowledge and that risk, the minister is not able to convince her government to expand the number of beds and shelters for abused women in this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly am aware of the problem, as is our government, and deeply concerned. We increased the funding for programs against violence against women by 33% last year and made that funding permanent, not just a year-to-year initiative funding, which was the practice of the previous two governments.

We are very well aware that we need to be providing not only shelter services but the kind of preventive services, interventive counselling services and support services within the community that women need. There is no question in our minds that it is extremely difficult, not only for the women and children involved but for our communities, when we find it difficult to provide the full services that are required. We have certainly given our commitment this morning to the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, indeed to all our partners in community service in the area of wife assault, that we will continue our efforts to do this.

One of the really serious points that we have in this whole program is that it needs to be multifaceted. We cannot continue to simply concentrate on the shelter aspect. We need to have an integrated community approach that deals with all aspects of the problem. Even then, the unfortunate thing is that we may not be able to guarantee safety to every person however hard we try, although it is our commitment to continue those efforts.

1500

Mr Jackson: The question was not about the $20 million the government pledged in May which it has still not released to the shelters in this province. My point is that my constituent who died this morning did not have access to a shelter. I am asking the question on behalf of the 11,000 women and children who are routinely turned away at shelters.

Again, I ask the minister about Halton Women's Place in Burlington. Both the member for Oakville South and I have been on the floor of the Legislature raising this issue for over a year with the government. What do we have to show for it? The government gave an election promise. It was mentioned in the throne speech.

To the former Minister of Housing, we have a letter from Halton Women's Place which says they felt they had been misled by the government because they now know they are not eligible for funding.

To the former Minister of Community and Social Services, we have documented three letters from Halton Women's Place which her office lost. They could not find these letters.

Now the member for London Centre is the minister. Today at the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses lobby session, the minister told them she was distressed with how long the process of getting money out of the government has become. Women and children are counting on the minister. Why can Bob White convince the cabinet to sell the Dome off for a song to Trevor Eyton, yet the minister cannot convince her cabinet to build a shelter for abused women and children in Burlington when such clear and tragic demand is being demonstrated?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The two situations are totally different. The situation in Halton is one where the community consultation agreed to on request by the shelter movement when the announcement of shelter funding was made in May has not yet taken place. I did indeed indicate that I was unhappy with the delays in that consultation, some of which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but some of which are also the responsibility of the community. It is hard for a community to make an integrated approach in some cases, and some communities have found it harder than others.

We made a commitment that we would not simply dole out money but would do that according to principles set within the community. The consultation in Halton has taken a long time to get going. My understanding is that it is under way now. I can be quite frank with the member; I do not think the process of allocating these funds has been as speedy as I would like to see. My ministry is on notice about that and knows we need to improve in terms of the distribution of funds when they are available.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Sutherland: The issue of having adequate, skilled tradespeople in this province is an important one and is part of any government's agenda for economic renewal. My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and relates to the issue of apprenticeship. As many people are aware, there has been some indication that the minister will be announcing details of the consultation around the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. Related to that, I would like to ask the minister if he can assure this House that the much-needed reforms in the area of apprenticeship will not be put on hold while the consultation process on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board takes place.

Hon Mr Allen: Many people have asked me just this question, so it is a very current one. As we move towards an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, it is true that those new structures and arrangements for training will take over responsibilities in the apprenticeship area, but I want to assure the member and all who are listening and will hear this report that there will be no delay in the reform of apprenticeship in the interval.

In the course of the last year, I have had the director of the apprenticeship and client services branch busily working on laying the basis for new advances and reforms, and those are largely in place. The new director appointed within the last six months has been specifically mandated to carry forward a program of significant reform under a number of heads with respect to apprenticeship and he will be doing that.

Mr Sutherland: I am sure many people waiting to get into apprenticeship programs will be pleased to hear that. As members know, the minister in this House outlined details of the new Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement a few weeks ago. I wonder if the minister could please elaborate for us what specific benefits are in that agreement for the apprentices in this province.

Hon Mr Allen: I think the member knows, and perhaps other members of the House will know, that the agreement was to regulate the level and nature of the spending by the federal government on training in Ontario. Two particular problems in that agreement related to the issue of apprenticeship. The first had to do with the question of the cap that has existed on the funding provided by the federal government for apprenticeship. That had stayed at $40 million for several years. We have been successful in the negotiations in securing the removal of that cap for apprenticeship training in Ontario.

Second, there had been a problem in providing dollars through the federal government to support the education part of the apprenticeship program. Those dollars will now be given in a more timely way and in a more effective fashion so that it will be possible for the program to provide the dollars to support those apprenticeship students appropriately.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING

Mr Curling: My question is to the Solicitor General, now that he is awake, who will be aware that approximately a week ago a youth was shot by a Metropolitan Toronto police officer. As a result of this shooting, the youth suffered serious injury and today remains in critical condition in a Toronto hospital. The Solicitor General will also be aware that this is a case where the Ontario special investigations unit is legally required to make an independent investigation of the circumstances around the shooting.

I do not know if members have been following it. In a media report it has come to our attention that the SIU is not conducting an independent investigation. In fact the director, John Osler, has admitted that the Metro Toronto police are carrying out a police investigation, in direct contravention of the Police Services Act.

I want to remind the Solicitor General, while he is responding to that question, of what the Premier said when he was an opposition member: "Why not seize the leadership that is required, understand that the independence of the review process is critical...." Can the Solicitor General explain why he is allowing Metro power of investigation? Under what authority is Metro conducting this investigation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would first like to point out that I fully support the special investigations unit and its mandate as an independent civilian body to investigate possible criminal actions by police officers that involve serious injury or death. I would also like to point out that this is an independent body. It is supposed to be independent not only of police interference but of political interference. I support the independence of the SIU and I do not intend to compromise that independence by directing the director, John Osler, in how he should be conducting his business.

I do however recognize that since the inception of the SIU by the previous Liberal government in August 1990, there have been a number of concerns raised by different segments of the community. I realize that the SIU has had some growing pains. There have been problems, but I think we should put this issue in perspective.

The SIU is a unique phenomenon, not only in Canada but also in the United States and even Europe. As far as I know, no other jurisdiction in these areas has an independent civilian body to investigate possible criminal actions by police involving death or serious injury. We are breaking new ground in this area and this government is 100% behind this idea. We can only expect, however --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

1510

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am attempting to do so, but the question raised by the member is a very delicate one and requires, I think, a fairly definitive response. I can be finished very briefly, if you wish, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I realize it is a complex issue. Perhaps the minister could respond to the member either in writing or by placing information on the order paper or indeed by making a statement on another day.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

I have affixed my name to this petition. In addition, it is signed by a number of good people in the town of Stayner in my riding of Simcoe West.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"A major source of frustrating and dangerous traffic jams, the Trans-Canada Highway from Waubaushene to Honey Harbour must be widened immediately. The Ministry of Transportation's failure to meet its continually changing deadlines is unacceptable. We want a firm commitment to four-lane this stretch of Highway 69 by October 1992."

The petition is signed by some 66 residents in various parts of the province of Ontario, and I have affixed my signature thereto.

HIGHWAY RECONSTRUCTION

Mr Eves: I have a second petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Petitioning for reconstruction of Highway 518 from Orrville to Highway 69: Help. Highway 518 sends greetings and an SOS."

This particular petition is signed by some 741 residents primarily, if not all, in my riding; just about every resident of the community of Orrville. I can personally attest to the deteriorating condition of this highway and have affixed my signature thereto.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's Report Under Standing Order 123 on Service Delivery at the Workers' Compensation Board and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Kormos: I want to first thank the people who participated in the committee. I am talking about Dan Waters, Ted Arnott, John Cleary, George Dadamo, Bob Huget, Leo Jordan, Paul Klopp, Sharon Murdock, Steve Offer, David Ramsay and Len Wood. Their participation as members of that committee was most valuable in arriving at these recommendations. As well, all of us should be grateful to the staff who co-operated and participated: Harold Brown, Lisa Freedman and Tannis Manikel as clerks, and of course, Lorraine Luski as research officer.

This report, which is available and which discusses service delivery at the Workers' Compensation Board, is a valuable critique, a good starting point for reforms. We should congratulate the WCB because it has undertaken its own review internally. I want to commend this to any of the listeners. It is available from any MPP's office. It is a matter of phoning or writing to any of the 130 MPPs' constituency offices, and this report will be made available to interested persons.

People in injured workers' groups, industrial workers, trade unionists, among others, will undoubtedly be interested in reading this report and perhaps in communicating further with the government or members of the opposition, as is their wish.

I want to thank the committee and I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me rise and speak, albeit briefly, to this most important matter.

Mr Runciman: He doesn't get too many opportunities these days.

Mr Kormos: It is a rare occasion that I speak in the Legislature. Again, unfortunately, it is unscripted and I appreciate that this in itself causes problems for some of us around here, but at this point I do want to move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: I did ask if you had a brief statement.

On motion by Mr Kormos, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act/Projet de loi153, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le don de tissus humain.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Henderson: This bill requires hospitals to seek consent from the family of a deceased patient to remove tissue from the body of the deceased for transplant purposes. The hospital is required to seek consent in all situations, except for certain situations which are set out in the bill, such as the transplantable tissue being unsuitable or not needed, or the emotional or physical condition of the consenter making the request inappropriate. Virtually identical legislation is being passed elsewhere with all-party agreement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION REPEAL ACT, 1991 LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI INTITULÉE JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ACT

Mrs Haslam moved second reading of Bill 73, An Act to repeal The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965/Projet de loi 73, Loi portant abrogation de la loi intitulée The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965.

Hon Mrs Haslam: The Ontario Heritage Foundation assumed responsibility for preserving the burial place of John Graves Simcoe and his wife in 1982, when title to their burial place, Wolford Chapel in Devon, England, was transferred to the foundation. The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act is now unnecessary legislation and the repeal of the act is a housekeeping matter.

1520

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I want to take this opportunity to put into Hansard some recollections that we in the Liberal Party have of this outstanding contributor to the history of Ontario.

No one in Ontario can but be touched by the memory of John Graves Simcoe, first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. John Graves Simcoe was born in 1752 at Cotterstock in England and died at the relatively young age of 54. He was commander of the Queen's Rangers in the American Revolution and arrived in what is now Ontario at the age of 40 to take up his duties in granting land to United Empire Loyalists, fugitives from the American Revolution.

John Graves Simcoe was confident of the loyalty of these American settlers in Ontario and knew that they were his best hope for the rapid growth Ontario so badly needed at that time. He saw southwestern Ontario as the future centre of the province and even foresaw it as the hub of Canadian trade with the interior of the continent. He founded the city that is now Toronto, intending it to be a temporary capital for Upper Canada, and designed our road system.

John Graves Simcoe was a man of remarkable insight and foresight. He systematically set about to make Upper Canada an example of his excellence and the creativity of British institutions. Among his many achievements, he appointed county lieutenants, introduced a court of king's bench and declared slavery illegal. These are all significant achievements and historical traditions that we have built upon.

He defeated efforts to introduce some American customs into Canadian government, was instrumental in setting up the municipal government system in Ontario and helped to found what is now the University of Toronto. His roadbuilding projects included Yonge and Dundas streets, and Lake Simcoe is named after his father, an honour he wished to personally bestow on that man.

He left the colony at the age of 44 to become governor of what is now the Dominican Republic, and became commander-in-chief for India in 1806, just before his death.

I provide this brief autobiographical review to illustrate what a crucial role John Graves Simcoe played in the early history of our province, and to help Ontarians recognize that the repeal of the John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act is not a bit of trivial history, but a rather significant and in some ways sad moment in the evolving historical awareness of our province.

Only two and a half hours by train from London, England, lies a piece of soil that the descendants of John Graves Simcoe insist belongs to Canada. That small cemetery in Devon contains the remains of John Graves Simcoe and is proudly cared for by his great-great-grandson, William Powler.

Two years ago the chapel on that site was rededicated, having been restored by the Ontario Heritage Foundation. It is a small stone building in the lush countryside of Devon and was deeded to the province of Ontario in a ceremony in which the then Premier, John Robarts, participated in 1966. It has been maintained by this province and was well on the way to becoming a place of pilgrimage for historically minded Ontarians. Nona Macdonald, president of the John Graves Simcoe Association, pronounced the chapel to be one of the jewels of Simcoe's legacy. She pointed out that the house where Simcoe died some 15 years after he set out to live in a tent in what is now Ontario is now a symbol for us to honour.

While we support this bill, we must remind the government that the traditions that have been built by people such as John Graves Simcoe and the members of the memorial foundation, members of long standing who have devoted many volunteer hours to the effort of providing and protecting the history of this province, will be encouraged and will be financially supported through the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

The NDP government's short record of lack of attention to symbolism devoted to our historical partnership with England and the many settlers of British heritage must be improved. We saw throughout the recent visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales indications that Ontarians find inspiration in our long-standing historical heritage. I and many Ontarians cherish the memory of the founders of our province and its institutions. I trust that John Graves Simcoe and his legacy will continue to be appropriately honoured and the traditions of this province will continue to be supported.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I would like to reiterate what has been said and indicate that for 1989-90, we have an annual cost of keeping the Wolford Chapel in good repair. We have actually allocated $60,000 for the restoration of the chapel. Attendance in 1989 was some 850 people. We appreciate the comments and we will, in keeping with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, continue the upkeep of the chapel.

Mr McLean: I would like to participate in this debate because it appears to me that it is going to be the last time we will have the opportunity to talk at any length about John Graves Simcoe in this Legislature. I do not plan on going on at any length, because we support the change that is being made.

I want to bring to the attention of the members of this Legislature that back in 1989, I brought in a private member's bill, trying to get what was called a Heritage Day Act. It was to be thought of as the John Graves Simcoe one; it was after him that I brought this bill in. There are just a couple of paragraphs in the statement that I made at that time. It is very brief.

"I believe that if we celebrate a Heritage Day on the third Monday in February as a public holiday, we will be providing our citizens with an ideal opportunity to learn about their brothers and sisters who live next door, in the nearby community and adjoining townships who may have a different culture or heritage than themselves."

The reason I mention this is three of the municipalities in the county of Simcoe. John Graves Simcoe's wife had three dogs and the townships were named after those three dogs: Tiny, Tay and Flos. So there is a fair bit of heritage here and a lot of history.

"I cannot think of a better method of improving the multicultural composition of our society, of ending discrimination in employment practices or in renting affordable housing. Can members think of a better method for making each and every one of us more sensitive to the different traditions and values of our immigrant, ethnic or native brothers and sisters in this province?

"But Heritage Day celebrations would not be restricted to only recognizing the role and accomplishments of the many diverse cultural groups in this province. The day could be used in a particular community to focus increased public attention on the role and many accomplishments of many individuals in the history of Ontario.

"For example, some communities may wish to acknowledge the many accomplishments and contributions of a man who was elected to the House of Commons in 1790 and appointed, on 12 September 1791, as the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Of course, I am referring to John Graves Simcoe who convened the first Legislative Assembly in our province and established York, which we now call Toronto, as the capital of Ontario.

"That is only one example of a person who left his or her mark on our history," that is, when I refer to John Graves Simcoe.

I am sorry to say that we never got that Heritage Day Act through. I felt that we should have. The amount of history that this individual and his family have left to this province I hope will be in the records for ever, and that the John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation will continue to make sure the assets are looked after and that the repeal of The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965, will formally give all duties and responsibilities for Wolford Chapel to the Ontario Historical Society and will allow the two organizations to amalgamate.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak just briefly on this Bill 73, An Act to Repeal The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I would like to reiterate that the Ontario Heritage Foundation, an agency of this government, has assumed ownership of Wolford Chapel. It is an important tangible reminder of the British fact in Ontario's heritage. The Ontario Heritage Foundation will assume the ownership and will commit itself to its preservation. I would like to thank all those members who participated in the debate and in their support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (TEMPORARY MEMBERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU BARREAU (MEMBRES PROVISOIRES)

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved third reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Law Society Act /Projet de loi75, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la Société du barreau.

Mr Winninger: The purpose of this bill is to allow exchange programs between crown counsel and crown attorneys in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General and lawyers from foreign jurisdictions. The bill permits the Law Society of Upper Canada, upon request of the Attorney General, to admit to the practice of law in Ontario lawyers who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

This temporary membership carries with it all of the rights and responsibilities accorded to lawyers, save the right to vote in law society elections. This will enable the ministry to enhance its professional development programs by exposing Ontario government lawyers to the practice of law and public policy in other parts of the common law world.

In the long run, programs like these will result in higher calibre legal work being carried out on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Mr Chiarelli: Last week, I believe, there were three bills from the Ministry of the Attorney General in the House for second reading. Today, in the orders of the day, including Bill 75, which has just been moved for third reading, there are six bills from the Ministry of the Attorney General in the House.

I just want to repeat one of the points that I made last week. When one looks at these six bills that the House will be considering this afternoon, one cannot determine what the agenda of this government is for the administration of justice in Ontario. The bills represent an ad hoc accumulation of bills that make no organized sense whatsoever. A number of the bills are simply copies of bills which were introduced in the last Parliament by the then Attorney General.

I will be pointing out, as each bill comes up today, the ad hoc nature of the legislation which this government is bringing forward with respect to the administration of justice. In particular, I want to say that this bill is very poorly drafted, particularly when one reads the explanation the Attorney General gave in this House the week before last.

He indicated that the bill "is to allow exchange programs between crown counsel and crown attorneys in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General and lawyers from foreign jurisdictions." Well, of course, when one reads the bill and the explanatory note which is appended to the bill, it says nothing about an exchange program. It basically says:

"The purpose of the bill is to permit the admission of persons qualified to practise law outside Ontario as temporary members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Temporary members are permitted to act as barristers and solicitors in the employ of the Attorney General for Ontario or, if appointed under the Crown Attorneys Act, as crown attorneys or assistant crown attorneys."

There is no restriction in this bill to exchange programs. There is no restriction in this bill to indicate that the purpose is to enhance the training or the quality of barristers and solicitors in the Ontario government. The purpose is quite broad, when one looks at the legislation. It in fact confers upon the ministries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General special privilege when it comes to retaining the services of barristers and solicitors from outside the province.

I suggested to the Attorney General last week that this is unfair and unequal in the sense that there are many large corporations in Ontario that have special legal needs, needs for special expert attention on various matters, and there is no reason why they ought not to be given the same rights and privileges as the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Ministry of the Solicitor General. They ought to be able to apply to bring in temporary counsel for their own purposes and needs.

When I mentioned that to the Attorney General, he indicated that it seemed like a fair idea, but of course there is no indication that he will be bringing forward any amendments on this particular issue. I do believe the rationale that has been given here today and was given last week is not really what is represented in the bill itself.

Another comment I want to make with respect to this bill is that it really opens the door for the provincial government, almost at will, to retain lawyers from other provinces, for example, Manitoba, for its own purposes: to act as prosecutors or what have you. I pointed out last week that if they wanted senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General's office, they could, as they have with other senior bureaucrats with particular political leanings, mainly NDP, import those into the Ontario ministries here to do the bidding of this particular government in a very political way.

I think if that abuse is possible, it raises particular concerns, because the legislation itself confers this right strictly on the government and not on other large legal employers such as large legal firms or corporations that have major legal involvement.

I do want to reiterate those points which I raised last week with the Attorney General. I think they are very significant.

The other point is that this particular little bill of one or two sections raises a very serious, major problem that we have in this country, and that is the problem of interprovincial trade and professional restrictions. What we see here is that we need a special bill to bring into the province, on a temporary basis through approval of the Law Society of Upper Canada, lawyers to do certain types of work.

When we take that particular requirement and expand it throughout the whole economy, we see that virtually every profession and trade is in the same position. The people from British Columbia or Newfoundland or New Brunswick cannot easily come to Ontario to practise their profession or trade. There are a lot of barriers to transprovincial professionals and trades. This is a major problem and it is afflicting this country as it never has in the past.

This government has done absolutely nothing to address the greater issue of interprovincial free trade. What it is doing is passing one narrow bill temporarily permitting lawyers from other provinces to come into Ontario -- not only just to come into the province, but even restricting it to working for the provincial government.

This government is negligent in not addressing the major problem of interprovincial free trade. It continues to spin its wheels. The last government did something quite significant. The then Premier and the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology went to first ministers' conferences, went to various conferences and basically tried to get the other provinces to agree to interprovincial free trade.

I know I am digressing a bit from this particular bill, but I do want to say I think it is very narrow. The Attorney General had indicated he was prepared to amend it to include in its coverage large law firms and perhaps corporations, and I certainly would recommend that the Ministry of the Attorney General do that. We will be voting for this legislation reluctantly, because it is so narrow and does not address the broader issues.

1540

Mr Harnick: I spoke about this bill at second reading stage. As I said then, I do not see anything sinister in this bill. It is a very straightforward bill which permits the exchange programs for crown attorneys.

I heard the remarks of my friend from the Liberal Party. I heard his concern, asking: What about other aspects of the profession? Why are these the only people who can get temporary calls to the bar?

My understanding is that lawyers come here all the time from other jurisdictions and that they can carry on a practice of consulting in commercial areas in conjunction with law firms that they may be doing business with on a commercial basis. They can be called to the bar for the purpose of pleading cases and they can request a special status to plead those cases in the courts. So this bill, although it only deals with crown attorneys, is not anything really different than we have had for a long time in Ontario.

The thing about the bill that concerns me is that once it is passed, I wonder if the Attorney General is going to have anything else to do for the balance of his term. I can see that on the orders of the day for today, every bill the Attorney General has presented to this Legislature is here for either second or third reading, and I do not see any indication that there is anything more to come.

Unfortunately -- I will be speaking about this at greater length later -- these bills do not really do anything in terms of solving the greater problems we have in the justice system in this province. They deal with very particular, narrow house-cleaning issues. They are bills that were drafted by the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, not anything that was initiated by this government. The Attorney General has yet to show us any legislation in any form that he intends to introduce. I just fear that when today is finished, the Attorney General probably will have nothing to do for the balance of his term.

His eagerness to get even these house-cleaning bills completed was suspect, because this simple little bill to allow programs for crown attorneys from this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions to exchange places for temporary periods of time came before this House on April 23, 1991. That was seven or eight months ago. I do not know why it has taken seven or eight months for this bill to complete three readings when everybody is essentially in favour of it. I am very suspicious that the Attorney General does not have any idea of where we are going once the Liberal legislation is passed. Even the passing of the legislation has taken a donkey's age.

I hope we can get this cleaned up. I hope eventually the Attorney General will favour us with some of his own legislation, start to look at the problems the justice system in this province has and start to try to solve those problems once the Liberal house-cleaning bills are completed.

Mr Chiarelli: I just want to underline the uncertainty being created in the legal profession in Ontario by this government's having no agenda. Just this weekend, for example, as the Ottawa Citizen reported, one of Ontario's top judges, Chief Justice Frank Callaghan, head of the Ontario Court (General Division), told a weekend conference of lawyers:

"There is a real, continuing danger of having in the province an entrenched court reform bureaucracy. Once it gets started, it can only justify its existence by bringing about further reforms, whether needed or not. It has proven very difficult over the past year to manage this court effectively when it is in a constant state of threat of fundamental change."

The Chief Justice is saying he does not know where this province is going in the administration of justice. He sees threats of reform but he sees no assurances. He really does not know where this government is bringing the administration of justice. I think that is a real damning indictment of this government. I want the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General to bring this serious concern to the ministry's attention, because the government has not given a good, sound message as to where it is bringing the administration of justice in Ontario.

It is about time they did it. They have been in government for 14 or 15 months. The judge see threats of action and reform and has no idea where the government is going. I think it is time the Attorney General took heed.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the member that he did not reply to the comments made by the member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: I think we should get some of these done. The delay in dealing with matters that are simple and straightforward bothers me. Waiting seven months to deal with a piece of legislation that could have been dealt with in three days is something I cannot understand. It underlies the fact that the Attorney General has no direction. He has no idea what is important, he has no idea what is necessary now and he is fixated with dealing with simple little things that are taking in excess of seven months to complete, when the real job and the real problems are being avoided. I think we have to get these things done and encourage the Attorney General to get going, because we have problems that need solving.

Mr Winninger: I remind my friends in the House, as I said in my introductory remarks, that the bill permits the Law Society of Upper Canada, upon the request of the Attorney General, to admit to the practice of law in Ontario lawyers who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents. I think what my friend the member for Ottawa West seems to be forgetting is that the law society is an independent, self-governing body. What we have done with this bill is allow the law society to retain control over who is admitted to the law society and when and on what terms they can practise, temporarily or permanently, in Ontario.

The Attorney General can only request that a foreign lawyer be admitted as part of the program. The Attorney General cannot mandate that, simply because of the self-governing nature of the Law Society of Upper Canada. As suggested by the member for Ottawa West, corporations might ask to be admitted with foreign lawyers to this jurisdiction. Certainly the law society can deal with it. The breadth of this bill allows it.

I would also like to address an allegation made by the member for Ottawa West that this is a backhanded way of bringing in political lawyers from other jurisdictions. Certainly the law society retains the control in Ontario as to who can practise and on what terms. I think the member for Ottawa West, as a lawyer with some experience, I understand, who should understand these things, has simply forgotten the overarching authority the law society has in matters of who can practise in this province. I am certain the member for Ottawa West would be the first to protest if this government suddenly started determining what kind of standards of admission the Law Society of Upper Canada should exercise. The Attorney General only requests that these lawyers be admitted for these purposes, and the law society retains the control.

1550

As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this act is to facilitate the educational and professional enhancement for government lawyers. It is not a free trade scenario. It is not a proposal that should deal with industrial relations. This bill has a very narrow focus. I invite the member for Ottawa West to revisit what he said today in the House. In light of what I have said about the government's narrow focus in this bill, perhaps the member for Ottawa West will come to a full understanding that we are not dealing with free trade here, we are not dealing with industrial relations and we are not dealing with a political agenda. We simply want to enhance the experience, open doors and cross-fertilize in a manner that crown attorneys can only benefit from and which will enrich the manner in which they practise and carry out their professional duties.

I would also respond briefly to comments made by the member for Willowdale. He used the word "suspicious." He used the phrase "donkey's age." He talked about delay, he talked about avoidance. Certainly the bill that is presently being debated, Bill 75, was not unduly delayed and it certainly addresses some of the reforms the members have been asking for from the opposite side of the House.

In conclusion, I suggest the Attorney General is cognizant of many of the reforms that need to be made and he is driving forward this agenda in a very timely and effective manner.

Motion agreed to.

FRAUDULENT DEBTORS ARREST REPEAL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI SUR L'ARRESTATION DES DÉBITEURS EN FUITE

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved third reading of Bill 76, An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act/Projet de loi 76, Loi portant abrogation de la Loi sur l'arrestation des débiteurs en fuite.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to offer today for third reading An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act. The Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act has been part of Ontario law in its present form since 1909. Its history can be traced back to pre-Confederation days when property rights were often viewed as more important than the civil rights of people.

This bill will remove from the statute book a method of arresting and imprisoning a citizen for civil debt which, outside the context of family law, is archaic. The creditors, lawyers and interest groups which the Ministry of the Attorney General consulted unanimously endorsed this bill. Fortunately the act is rarely used now that modern legal remedies which focus on the assets rather than the person of the debtor are available. When spouses are in default of their family support obligations, the remedies provided in other legislation, including the use of imprisonment in appropriate cases, will continue to be available.

The arbitrary arrest and imprisonment provisions provided in the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act can no longer be tolerated. I am pleased therefore to call on the House to vote for its repeal.

Mr Chiarelli: I note the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General has basically quoted verbatim the minister's comments of November 5, 1991, in explaining what this bill is all about.

I made some comments when the Attorney General introduced this for second reading that what we are really doing here is getting rid of one of the remnants of debtors' prison, where people can be put in jail for non-payment of debts. Of course, it has not been used very much in recent years. The issue I raised last week is that people are still being put in jail for minor infractions such as parking tickets and other offences which are really not criminal but which carry fines. People are being put in jail for non-payment of fines.

When I raised this on November 5, the Attorney General said: "The member for Ottawa West asked...what are we doing to deal with issues of incarceration with respect to minor offences like municipal bylaws and the Highway Traffic Act, etc. I am happy to tell him that we have been working on this issue since early this year and we will be bringing forward some legislation, I hope, this fall if the schedule permits."

I am simply asking a question. There is a problem here of putting people in jail when they ought not to be in jail for non-payment of debts and parking fines. Why can the government not draft some kind of omnibus bill that deals with this issue on an overall basis? They are piecemeal and ad hoc in everything they do in the Ministry of the Attorney General. We have here a problem that is more prevalent -- putting people in jail and incarcerating them for non-payment of fines -- yet they abolish an old act that is hardly ever used any more. What they are really doing is underlining in a very significant way that they are doing everything on an ad hoc basis.

I urge the ministry to get its act together, look at major issues, deal with them together and not waste the time of the House by bringing them in piecemeal from time to time. Nobody objects to this bill; no one is going to object to a bill that rationalizes incarcerating people for non-payment of fines. The Attorney General should pull them together and do it in an organized, efficient manner for the ministry, for the people of Ontario and for this Legislature. The government is just plain incompetent in how it is managing the public business. It should get on and do it in a better way.

We are going to vote in favour of this bill, but we should be voting for something that is more comprehensive and better thought out. The government should get its act together.

Mr Harnick: It is interesting that these bills are so straightforward that not a single member on the government side has risen during second or third reading of any of these bills and made any comments. That enforces my belief that there is no reason why these bills had to take seven months to pass through this Legislature.

This is another bill that first appeared here on April 23, 1991. It consists essentially of one section. The gist of that section is that the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act is repealed. I have no idea why this bill took seven months to pass through this Legislature. These bills are so straightforward that even the members on the government benches understand them and they do not have any comments. I do not know why these things take seven months. They are straightforward. There are no regulations that go with them. There is no administrative process that goes with these bills. There is no money the government has to spend in terms of implementing these programs. Yet they take seven months to get one single section through. I think it is probably because the Attorney General forgot he introduced these, it was so long ago. I am going to vote for this and I am delighted to see that we are going to get it off the plate of this assembly.

1600

Mr Winninger: I would just remind the member for Ottawa West that the act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act is one that deals with civil debt, not criminal sanctions. We agree that in the criminal and quasi-criminal arena there may be problems with incarceration, but in the non-civil field more consideration is necessary due to its complexity.

Here the focus is a very narrow one and this bill simply repeals an archaic provision that leads to the arrest of fraudulent debtors, incarcerating the person instead of dealing with seizure of the property. It is time that this archaic provision, dating back to 1909, as I indicated earlier, be repealed and we deal with the collection of civil debts in a modern manner.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ARBITRAGE

Consideration of Bill 42, An Act to revise the Arbitrations Act/Projet de loi 42, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur l'arbitrage.

The Chair: Are there questions or amendments, and if so, to which section?

Mr Winninger: Mr Speaker, I was just going to ask whether staff might be permitted to enter the chamber to assist.

The Chair: Yes, certainly. We will wait.

I will ask the question again. Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Winninger: I thought I would indicate that there are five amendments I propose to introduce today, dealing with sections 6, 29, 33, 35 and 45.

The Chair: Are there members who have any comments to any section? Shall sections 1 to 5, inclusive, carry?

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 6:

The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"6. No court shall intervene in matters governed by this act, except for the following purposes, in accordance with this act:

"1. To assist the conducting of arbitrations.

"2. To ensure that arbitrations are conducted in accordance with arbitration agreements.

"3. To prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration agreements.

"4. To enforce awards."

Mr Winninger: This amendment is being introduced to amend the language in the Uniform Arbitration Act. Alberta has also added this language to its act to reinforce the general exclusion of the courts. Several lawyers in Ontario have found it desirable to ensure that court intervention is restricted to the purposes for which the act contemplates it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 7 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 29:

The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that subsection 29(1) be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) A party may serve a person with a notice, issued by the arbitral tribunal, requiring the person to attend and give evidence at the arbitration at the time and place named in the notice."

Mr Winninger: In its present form the bill is not now clear on how a notice to attend is issued. I am talking about what is commonly known as a summons or subpoena. Such notices should come from the arbitrator.

Motion agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

1610

Section 33:

The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that section 33 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"33. The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the contract, if any, under which the dispute arose, and may also take into account any applicable usages of trade."

Mr Chiarelli: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant why the mandatory nature of taking into account applicable usages of the trade has been deleted and it has been put in on a discretionary basis. Certainly my inclination would be that if there are applicable usages of trade, it should be mandatory to take those into account rather than discretionary, and I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can tell me why that has been changed from mandatory to optional or discretionary. Could he perhaps give an example or two of why it would make a difference, having it optional rather than mandatory?

Mr Winninger: The arbitrator in this particular context is an independent one. Through the appointment process and the training for arbitrators, we expect that the arbitrator will, when appropriate and when necessary, refer to customary usages of trade. This is an element that is discretionary, not mandatory. If we were to make it mandatory, this would suggest that the arbitrator has a duty to search for such usages, which is not the intention of the bill at all.

Certainly if the parties give evidence of usages, and again, my friend the member for Ottawa West, as a former practising attorney, is well aware that so much of the basis for what an arbitrator decides is based on the evidence presented before him by the parties and/or their solicitors, we are not about to bind the hands of the arbitrator. He can certainly refer to the usages or customs of trade, if appropriate, and that is the intention of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

Mr Chiarelli: I think it is fair comment to ask the question I did, and I gather there was some sort of implied sense that it was a glib question or was not a serious question. In fact, the mandatory aspect of the applicability of usages of trade found itself into the bill in its original form. It cleared the experts in the Ministry of the Attorney General's office and it cleared the consultative process as to making it mandatory.

What the section says is that if there are applicable usages of trade, what happens? Should it be mandatory to take them into account or should it be optional? I think it is an open question, and I do not think the provision that says it should be optional imposes an obligation on any arbitrator to search into the existence of applicable usages of trade. If any are brought to his attention and if in fact they are usages of trade, then perhaps the original wording of the legislation is more appropriate, and that is that the arbitrator "shall" take them into account.

Mr Winninger: I would certainly never imply that a question put forward by my friend the member for Ottawa West might be a glib one. There may be situations where a contract or a collective agreement, or even in some cases a domestic agreement, such as a separation agreement, where the parties have elected to go to arbitration, may be unclear or ambiguous in some respect. That would be an appropriate occasion when an arbitrator would choose to refer to the customs or usages of trade.

But if in fact the terms and conditions of the contract or agreement or what have you are clear on their surface, there may be no pressing reason to go to the customs or usages of trade and in fact it may be a waste of the arbitrator's time to do so. Certainly this section allows the arbitrator considerable latitude in coming to a decision as to whether he or she should invoke the usages of trade.

Motion agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34 agreed to.

Section 35:

The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that section 35 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"35. The members of an arbitral tribunal shall not conduct any part of the arbitration as a mediation or a conciliation process or other similar process that might compromise or appear to compromise the arbitral tribunal's ability to decide the dispute impartially."

Mr Harnick: I have some concerns -- I expressed them at second reading -- about the arbitration process and the fact that you will often have situations where mediation or conciliation may become necessary during the course of an arbitration. If the arbitrator or the panel interjects in a particular way, it may well be able to facilitate settling a dispute. However, they have to be cognizant of the fact that this section exists and that the words are "shall not conduct any part of the arbitration as a mediation or conciliation process or other similar process."

My concern about this section is that it may well take some flexibility away from the arbitrator. However, I would like to emphasize that the section goes on to say "that might compromise or appear to compromise the arbitral tribunal's ability to decide the dispute impartially." I think it is very significant to put on the record that particular part of the section because I think one hopes that in interpreting this section, courts will look at those words and interpret them broadly, recognizing what they hope an arbitrator can accomplish and recognizing that flexibility may in fact be the best part of this process and should not be limited.

Where I do have some concern is over the fact that this section may well limit the flexibility of an arbitrator, but I think one has to read this section in conjunction with the words "that might compromise or appear to compromise." I think those are the very key words of the section.

Motion agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 36 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 45:

The Chair: Mr Winninger moves that subsection 45(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "If the arbitration agreement does not deal with appeals on questions of law."

Motion agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 46 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mrs Coppen, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

1620

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (PAYMENTS TO SUPERNUMERARY JUDGES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (RÉMUNÉRATION DES JUGES SURNUMÉRAIRES)

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984 in respect of Payments to Supernumerary Judges/Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1984 sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui concerne la rémunération des juges surnuméraires.

Mr Winninger: This bill is part of our initiatives to eliminate unnecessary expenditures in the court system. The expenditure dealt with by this bill is the annual payment of $3,000 by the province to judges of the Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court (General Division) who already receive a full salary from the federal government.

The payment used to cover services by those judges as members of boards and commissions, such as police commissions, but judges no longer serve on those boards because it would be viewed as incompatible with an independent and impartial judiciary to have them participate in the executive branch of government.

The payment also used to cover what was known as persona designata jurisdiction of judges, which meant that the Legislature required these judges to decide questions of fact and law not as members of their court but rather as arbitrators.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a series of decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, so cut down the scope of persona designata jurisdiction as to make it almost meaningless. The original Courts of Justice Act, enacted in 1984, abolished persona designata jurisdiction entirely. The result is that the $3,000 payment is still being made but for services that are no longer rendered by the federal judiciary in Ontario.

The previous government, in its 1989 amendments to the Courts of Justice Act, eliminated the $3,000 payment for all future appointees. That amendment has been in place since September 1, 1990. The approach taken in that amendment, having it apply only to future appointees, has the virtue of not altering unilaterally the terms of employment of federal judges who took their appointment with the expectation that their salary would include $3,000 from the province.

This bill adopts a similar approach. It eliminates the payment if and when a judge chooses to go supernumerary. A supernumerary judge is one who, at the age of 65, decides not to retire or continue on with a full workload until the age of 75 but rather to work with a reduced schedule. The decision is entirely up to the judge of course. Supernumerary judges continue to receive their federal salary but under this bill they will lose the additional payment from the province.

In proposing this legislation, we have consulted the chief justices of the two affected courts and have secured their concurrence in our approach. We have also touched base with the federal Department of Justice, which has encouraged us to remove the $3,000 provincial payment.

It is our intention to proclaim the bill in force on January 1, 1992, in order to catch the next quarterly instalment of the annual payment.

Mr Harnick: I have some reservations about this act. The reason I have reservations is because judges who are still working and who elect to continue to work as judges are now receiving different remuneration than other judges who are working.

If a judge decides to become supernumerary and continues working, why should he have the $3,000 stipend removed from his salary when other judges are receiving that $3,000 stipend? Perhaps there are other ways the government could look at this. If the supernumerary judge is not working on a full-time basis, the government can prorate that amount of money, but the fact is that judge is still working and I happen to know at first hand that a great many supernumerary judges work full-time. Why should they be treated differently than any of their brother judges?

I think the way this bill has been proposed, it is very much a slap in the face to those judges who continue to work and who continue to help with the backlogs the courts have. If these judges did not elect to go supernumerary, it would mean that the actual number of judges hearing cases would be very much reduced in this province.

What we have in this province now are judges who have the option to become supernumerary judges. By becoming supernumerary judges they continue hearing cases, yet the federal government is then permitted to, and in fact does, appoint additional judges for the court. I think we have to encourage judges to opt to become supernumeraries.

Mr Winninger: Certainly the member for Willowdale has, on other occasions, indicated his concern with the expenditure of the public purse. I thought the member would applaud fiscal restraint of this kind.

The election to go supernumerary means an electing on the part of the supernumerary judge, as I said earlier, to work less than other judges, usually one half to two thirds of the regular workload. For this the supernumerary judge continues to collect a full federal salary, no less than $147,800. Surely the member for Willowdale is not suggesting that these supernumerary judges would be deterred from doing this kind of noble work merely because a $3,000 supplementary no longer is paid.

As I indicated during my opening remarks, this initiative is taken with the concurrence of the chief justices of both of the affected courts and, I presume, with the concurrence of their junior judges.

Mr Chiarelli: Our party is going to vote against this particular bill because it feels there is an inherent unfairness to it. It is a type of unfairness that we have seen in other legislation which has been brought forward by this government. In effect, this legislation is retroactive. What it says to judges who have been appointed over the years, who thought they were entering into what amounted to a de facto contract so that they could plan on a remuneration which included this $3,000, is: "All you judges who accepted your appointments on that basis" -- which I would call a contractual basis -- "that contract has been broken by the government with this piece of legislation. It is retroactive."

1630

I could support and our party could support a bill which said, "You newly appointed judges will know that you are not going to get that $3,000 when you become supernumerary." However, this legislation is retroactive. It is saying to judges who accepted their appointments on the basis of this $3,000: "You ain't going to get it any more. We've changed our mind. We're cutting it out. We have this rational reason."

There are two classes of people in this province. There is a class of people for whom this government legislates retroactively, whom this government considers the "ins," whether they are landlords, whether they are directors of companies, whether they are judges. They are the big, rich people whom we can do bad legislation for retroactively. If it is for the little person, we do not retroactively legislate.

The issue is not whether a judge makes $130,000 or $140,000 a year. The issue is that they are breaking a contract through legislation. It is bad law; it is bad practice; it is unfair. If it is a unionized operation, they are treated with kid gloves. If it is not, they are treated with a heavy retroactive hand.

This government has to learn that there are principles of fairness which affect everybody, including judges, landlords and directors of companies. It is a bad bill because it is retroactive. It is a disincentive for judges to continue hard work, judges who have contracted with the government for that $3,000. This represents a breach of contract. They are saving, by my estimate, somewhere in the area of $60,000 or $70,000 a year in the Ministry of the Attorney General by doing this.

They are cutting the judges back by $3,000. On the one hand, they gave 6% or 7% to public servants in Ontario, increasing by tens of millions of dollars a year their unionized employees, because they have got to be good to union employees. On the other hand, we look at a judge; they will retroactively give him or her a pay cut of $3,000. Shame on this government for continuing to legislate retroactively.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments on the member for Ottawa West's participation? No questions and/or comments. Further debate on Bill 146? I see no further debate. The honourable parliamentary assistant and member for London South may want to wrap up.

Mr Winninger: The member for Ottawa West raises an interesting issue of retroactivity. I suggest to the member that this is not really an issue of retroactivity, as he suggests. We are dealing with justices who have not attained a supernumerary status yet. We are not taking anything away from justices who are currently supernumerary judges. They continue to benefit from the status quo.

However, what we are saying to justices who are not yet 65 is: "You have a choice. You can stay on full-time and continue, of course, to collect your full salary of $147,800 a year or you may, for reasons of your own, choose to work less than full-time -- half time or perhaps two thirds of the normal workload -- or if you wish, you can retire when you reach age 65." Any judge who is entitled to become a supernumerary judge is also entitled to retire with a full pension if she or he wishes.

We are not taking anything away from judges who are currently supernumerary. I would only add that the saving will gradually increase over the years to approximately $600,000 a year after 20 years. This is a substantial saving to this government, and I would expect that given previous comments about fiscal restraint flowing from the members opposite, they would fully applaud this initiative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved second reading of Bill 28, An Act respecting Class Proceedings/Projet de loi 28, Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUNDING), 1990

Mr Winninger, on behalf of Mr Hampton, moved second reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to move second reading today actually of two bills, Bill 28 and Bill 29, which are companion bills that will greatly improve access to justice for the people of Ontario.

Bill 28, the Class Proceedings Act, and Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings, between them create a sophisticated procedure for the litigation of complex cases concerning mass loss.

As the two bills go hand in hand, I propose to address them both in my opening remarks with respect to Bill 28. However, I look forward to receiving further comments from members upon second reading of both Bill 28 and Bill 29.

By way of background, I remind the members of the House of the origins of this legislation. In 1982, the Ontario Law Reform Commission released the most thorough report on the state of class action law in Canada and indeed the world. The research and recommendations contained in that report formed the basis of work by an advisory committee on class action reform established by the Attorney General's predecessor, the member for St George-St David.

The advisory committee on class action reform, which was a broadly representative group that included spokespersons for business, consumers, environmentalists, insurers and the legal profession, developed unanimous recommendations for reform in this area. Members will recall that a class action or a class proceeding is a special procedure that permits numerous individuals who have suffered a common wrong to seek redress in one law suit as a group rather than in numerous law suits as individuals.

In this day and age, when resources for new government initiatives are so scarce, a reform such as this is a particularly welcome change. One of the primary goals of Bill 28 is to economize on the use of legal and judicial resources. With this procedure in place, many injured persons will be able to use one litigation vehicle to obtain compensation. We know the type of society we enjoy in Ontario is sometimes witness to incidents of mass loss. Ontario residents use an array of complex pharmaceutical and other products such as motor vehicles and carry on activities that often, if events go awry, threaten our very environment. It is precisely these cases of mass injury that will be well suited to treatment in a class proceeding.

1640

Concerns have been expressed in the past about the potential impact of the increased availability of class actions in Ontario. Fears have been voiced about opening the floodgates of litigation, increasing the use of our courts and facilitating litigation in what is considered to be an already overly litigious society. It is precisely these concerns that were addressed and resolved by the advisory committee that developed this legislation.

The procedure contained in these bills is a sophisticated one that treats plaintiffs and defendants fairly and with an even hand. I would like to take a moment to set out the highlights of this procedure for members of this House.

First of all, the class proceeding will include a step in which a judge will screen potential class proceedings according to a specific test. Members of the class who do not wish to participate in the class proceeding will have the opportunity to exclude themselves from, or opt out of, the proceeding.

The representative plaintiff will be required to ensure that class members obtain notice of the proceeding. Once certified by the court, the proceeding would continue in a manner similar to other civil litigation but with a number of significant differences, namely, that one judge will hear all motions up to the trial and the court will have the ability to make aggregate judgements in cases where the only issue is the assessment of damages for many individuals.

Normal cost rules for litigation will apply, but lawyers and their clients will be permitted to engage in special fee arrangements for such proceedings, subject, however, to the court having final control over all agreements with respect to fees and disbursements.

Another important feature of this procedure is the creation of a class proceeding fund. The Law Foundation of Ontario will endow a fund in the amount of $500,000 which is designed to provide financial assistance to representative plaintiffs in class proceedings. It will provide representative plaintiffs with financial assistance for disbursements such as expert reports and notice to class members. Members across the House who have practised law will know how costly some of these disbursements can be at the initial stages. It will also indemnify a representative plaintiff who has been assisted by the fund in the event the proceeding is unsuccessful and the court has ordered the representative plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

This is a progressive means by which the traditional financial barriers to this type of litigation can be lowered to permit representative plaintiffs to come forward on behalf of a class of injured persons.

The Law Foundation of Ontario deserves a vote of thanks from the residents of Ontario for its generous contribution to this fund. This procedure would not be possible were it not for the financial assistance of the Law Foundation of Ontario. It is an unprecedented contribution that will not only make this particular procedure work, but will also demonstrate to the people of Ontario that the legal profession itself is anxious to see increased access to justice for injured persons.

In conclusion, the two bills I bring forward today for second reading on behalf of the Attorney General will make an important contribution to what I know is a goal shared by all members of this House: access to justice. I urge the members of this House to study the legislation closely and provide either the Attorney General or myself with their comments. I hope we can enact both bills quickly in order that the procedure is made available at the earliest possible date for those who must use our courts to seek compensation in situations of mass loss.

The Acting Speaker: Before we proceed with questions or comments on the parliamentary assistant's participation, I believe the parliamentary assistant has requested that we proceed simultaneously with Bill 28 and Bill 29. Do we have consent to proceed simultaneously?

Agreed to.

Mr Harnick: At this juncture, with the two minutes I believe I have, I am interested, because the parliamentary assistant has actually done something unprecedented by his government: He has actually thanked lawyers.

We have heard the Treasurer blame lawyers for all the ills of the auto insurance business. We have heard one government member after another talk about the lawyers ruining the justice system of this province. Now here they are at the other end accepting money the lawyers are giving to make this program work.

I would like to thank the parliamentary assistant for the magnanimous gesture he has made and the fact that he, among all the government members -- I suspect he is probably the only one who recognizes the contribution the lawyers have made to the justice system in this province and particularly to facilitating the possibility for Bill 28 and Bill 29 to become realities.

Mr Winninger: I indicate very briefly that I suggest this government has the highest respect for the legal profession and in fact this assembly counts many members of that august law society within its ranks. I do not believe this is a precedent.

Mr McLean: What are you doing for farmers?

Mr Winninger: Certainly lawyers and farmers may have a lot in common, as suggested from one of the members opposite, in that they both may have difficult obstacles to surmount in their professions and have to deal with adversity on almost a daily basis.

I suggest this is indeed very progressive legislation that can be a beacon to other jurisdictions across Canada that do not already have class proceedings legislation. Certainly the inauguration of a fund of this kind to provide affirmative action for those people who perhaps in the past have been denied access to the courts is a very salutary development indeed.

Mr Chiarelli: Of course we will be supporting these two bills, but I want to make several comments.

I was elected in 1987 and I was able to see in action the then critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, the member for Rainy River, and rather suspected at the time that he had a secret desire, if he ever got into government, to be the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. I do not think he ever anticipated that he would become the Attorney General, because for the last 14 months in fact he has been acting like a parliamentary assistant to an Attorney General.

1650

In particular, we know that we are dealing this afternoon with the fifth and sixth bills from the Ministry of the Attorney General. Five and a half of those six bills were written by the previous Attorney General, the member for St George-St David; by the previous government. Since the ascent of the NDP to government and the ascent of the member for Rainy River to the position of Attorney General, he has really been carrying the member for St George-St David's old briefs, in the sense that he is following through on most of the legislation which the member for St George-St David introduced but did not have the time to complete.

If we look at Bill 28 and Bill 29, we see that they were introduced for first reading by this Attorney General on December 17, 1990. I ask, what could possibly have taken this Attorney General almost a full year to bring these bills forward? They are bills that were endorsed by all parties in the previous Legislature, endorsed by all stakeholders in the justice system as being desirable and good. In fact, it was good to see the parliamentary assistant speak with such conviction on these bills. What an improvement they will be to the administration of justice. I think that is a compliment to the previous government and previous research that has been done in the justice system in Ontario.

Since we are talking simultaneously about Bill 28 and Bill 29, I also want to make a few comments about Bill 29 and the funding of parties to class proceedings. Again, it raises the issue of this government not dealing with issues on a comprehensive basis. In the last Parliament, the 34th Parliament, I moved an amendment to the Intervenor Funding Project Act to provide for intervenor funding for appropriate groups before the Ontario Municipal Board on major planning matters, and the NDP members in the last Parliament all voted and spoke in favour of that particular amendment. That amendment would give stakeholders in communities across the province the right to apply for intervenor funding on major matters, planning matters -- and environmental matters, for that matter -- before the Ontario Municipal Board, and in the last Parliament the NDP members supported that amendment.

That amendment was moved again in this Parliament, the identical amendment which the Minister of the Environment had supported previously and which the Minister of Financial Institutions, another member of the cabinet, had supported and spoken in favour of, and in this Parliament this government voted against that amendment. That amendment would have done in many ways exactly what Bill 29 does, that is, give additional access to people and provide means of funding -- not provincial government money -- of intervenors before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Once again, there is the issue of funding appropriate class groups before a court or the Ontario Municipal Board or tribunals. When the Minister of the Environment was in opposition, she moved intervenor funding for all boards and commissions. In fact, she and her government voted against supporting it only to the Ontario Municipal Board several months ago.

We are talking here about streamlining the process. We are talking about access not only to courts but to administrative tribunals. On the one hand, this government is trying to take credit for this bill which in fact was initiated by the previous government; on the other hand, it is voting against a very sensible amendment to the Intervenor Funding Project Act which would have given people in our communities much more access to the Ontario Municipal Board, which really is a semi-judicial body that acts very much like a court.

In conclusion, I want to say that we certainly support these two bills, which make a lot of sense in streamlining the judicial process. I am only sorry that, with respect to Bill 29, it was not married with the overall issue of providing intervenor funding on a much broader basis in Ontario society.

Mr Harnick: I want to begin by saying that we will be supporting these bills. I regret the fact that it has taken 11 months, almost to the day, to get these bills to second reading. They first appeared before this Legislature on December 17, 1990. I think it bears going back and seeing what has happened in terms of the justice system over the past year.

I remind you, Mr Chair, because I do not want you to think I am going to get off topic, as the parliamentary assistant so ably indicated, we are talking here about access to justice. This bill provides access to justice. I want to take a look back over the course of history in the last year to talk about what this government has done regarding access to justice. Since this bill arrived in this Legislature, we have seen the Askov case come and go, and 40,000 cases were dismissed from the primarily provincial courts in the last year. That is not what I call access to justice. That is what I call a travesty for the judicial system, a travesty for the law enforcement system and a travesty for victims.

What was the government's reaction to the fact that 40,000 cases had been denied access to justice? Their reaction was to quickly spend $50 million and to try to resurrect the justice system in this province overnight. I think they have exhausted their budget in terms of access-to-justice legislation for the balance of this term. I think that more and more every day because I see that now they are trying to reduce the budget of the Ministry of the Attorney General. They have spent $50 million; they are now reducing their budget. There is nothing left to provide access to justice for the people of this province.

They spent $50 million, but what has it done in terms of the city of Ottawa, for instance? I had a phone call from a crown attorney in Ottawa today. He said to me he had a case for me to read and provided me with a case, the Court of Appeal decision talking about Askov. I have it here somewhere among all these papers; I will probably find it when I am finished. But what this case enumerated was the fact that the city of Ottawa is approximately, person for person, the same size as the city of Winnipeg. The city of Winnipeg has 28 judges serving its provincial courts; the city of Ottawa has 10. That is why cases in the Ottawa jurisdiction continue to be tossed out of court. The government's knee-jerk reaction of quickly spending $50 million has not solved the problems of the Askov case. The backlog was initially cleared, but the backlog is developing again in the city of Ottawa. I suspect that the city of Ottawa is not alone in that regard. Access to justice has been denied. It will continue to be denied because the government has blown the budget in terms of helping the people of this province in regard to access to justice.

1700

What other symptoms do we have? I think it is interesting. There is a judge by the name of David Cole who was appointed by this government after the Askov case, I believe. Judge Cole is a judge of the provincial court, and he sits in Scarborough. A year after the Askov case came out, he described what he thought it was like going to work. As he passes the gold bust of Elvis Presley that serves as his doorstop, the bearded judge says he feels like he is going into a sausage factory.

I think that if ever the Attorney General of this province should start to worry about the state of justice in this province, it is when one of his own appointments describes going to work as akin to going to a sausage factory. This judge must be saying to himself: "Why did I do this? I used to go out and practise law. I ran a practice and I helped people. Now I have moved from there, in being elevated to the bench, but in reality I have been elevated to the sausage factory." If that does not sound a warning to the Attorney General, if that does not shock the Attorney General, nothing will. But what do we see happening here? We see nothing happening by way of access to justice.

I also want to refer members to what the Chief Justice of Ontario says about the justice system in this province and what he says about access to justice.

An hon member: Who is that?

Mr Harnick: That is Mr Justice Callaghan. I am now quoting from the Toronto Star of July 17, 1991:

"Ontario's court system is a failure, the province's Chief Justice says.

"The main problem is that bureaucrats are funding and controlling the courts, Chief Justice Frank Callaghan said in a speech obtained by the Star.

"Judges as a group have lost their independence, he said. Callaghan says it's ludicrous that Attorney General Howard Hampton -- the province's chief prosecutor -- and his officials should be controlling the purse-strings of the legal system, courtroom space and judges' workloads.

"The result is that a person's right to a fair and speedy trial may be in trouble, he warned.

"Control of the courts should be taken away from the government and put in the hands of the judiciary, said Callaghan, Chief Justice of the Ontario Court (General Division).

"'The integrity of the legal system does not depend solely on the integrity of each individual judge,' he said. 'It also depends on the ability of the citizen to come before the independent judge and receive his or her judgement.

"'Should your opponent (the Attorney General) control your court system?' he asked litigation lawyers at a meeting of the Advocates' Society.

"Callaghan made his hard-hitting remarks in a speech after a society dinner in Toronto on June 20. He went on to criticize the province for putting a 'top-heavy bureaucracy' with no legal experience in charge of hiring and firing courtroom staff, deciding how much money the court system should get, where cases should be heard and what hours the court should sit.

"In an interview yesterday, Hampton said some of Callaghan's concerns 'are worth talking about.'"

For God's sake, this is the Chief Justice of the province saying the system of justice in this province is a failure, and the Attorney General has the audacity to say that some of his concerns "are worth talking about." Where are we going? We are talking here about access to justice.

The article goes on to quote a Toronto criminal lawyer by the name of John Rosen. I can tell this House that I personally know John Rosen. I do not think there is a better criminal lawyer in this country. I do not think there is a person who knows the criminal justice system better than John Rosen does, and here he says that "anyone involved in the system" knows what Justice Callaghan is talking about.

"'I think there's a lot of truth to what he says,' Rosen said in an interview yesterday. 'Can you believe in this day and age the court system is not on computer?' Rosen asked, offering an example of the government's ineptitude.

"Callaghan pointed to the way the Supreme Court of Canada is managed as a model. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints a registrar whose job it is to run the court. The registrar reports directly to Chief Justice Antonio Lamer."

I put it to this government that the legal profession knows what is going on. The lawyers who practise in the courts know what is going on and they know that access to justice in this province no longer exists. We have an Attorney General who is totally and completely out of touch with what is going on. Access to justice is something this Attorney General pays lipservice to.

I would like to go on and relate some of the other symptoms of the fact that the justice system is breaking down and that there is no access to justice.

In the Small Claims Court, we have a situation where we have a $3,000 maximum limit in Metropolitan Toronto, and outside of Metropolitan Toronto we have a $1,000 limit. That started out as an experiment. It started when the former Attorney General, Mr McMurtry, had a vision to expand the Small Claims Court. The Liberal government that followed that Conservative government never moved to change that system or to evaluate that experiment.

This government we now have completely ignores the small claims courts. They have now become part of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Attorney General stood in this Legislature and told me that he has no control. Well, he does have control. He can amend the Courts of Justice Act and he can create a Small Claims Court that will provide access for the citizens of this province.

We now have a Small Claims Court that has eight full-time judges. We used to have a Small Claims Court that had 13 judges. These judges do not even have judicial immunity. We have in excess of 2,000 cases a month being initiated in the small claims courts, yet the system is breaking down. The judges are not protected, the complement of judges is not complete, and we have an Attorney General who has stood in this Legislature and said he cannot do anything about it. I say to this House that the commitment of this government to access to justice is nothing more than lipservice.

The same thing is true when we talk about the new Ontario Court of Justice. We have overworked judges in that court, and the civil courts are no longer operating with any efficiency whatsoever. Preliminary motions in the Ontario Court of Justice, or in the predecessor to the Ontario Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of Ontario, were handled by masters. The court then merged and became twice the size. The number of masters remains the same. The judges do not have time to hear the preliminary motions in the court. All the motions come before the masters. The masters do not have the manpower and they do not have the resources to be able to move the cases along. When the cases stall at the level of the masters, they cannot get on to trial. They tend to back up and the courts become clogged.

What did the Attorney General tell me when I asked him about this problem during question period? He said, "There's nothing I can do." With respect, he can amend the Courts of Justice Act. We gave third reading today to a bill that provided crown attorneys the opportunity to be involved in exchange programs here and in other jurisdictions. The Attorney General can bring in a bill amending the Courts of Justice Act and do the same thing; bring it before this Legislature and make the position of master of the Ontario Court of Justice a reality. He can appoint masters and we can get the civil cases out of the backlog that is affecting the whole court.

1710

We have other examples of this government's commitment to access to justice. Last week alone, 1,700 parking offences were dismissed by justices of the peace in night court because they had lists in excess of 200 cases to deal with and they could not in any possible way deal with lists that size. They had no choice; they dismissed the whole docket.

This Attorney General, I suspect, has not set foot in a courtroom since the day he became the Attorney General to see what the state of justice is in this province. The fact that this is happening a year later and we have not seen any action by the Attorney General in these courts is indicative of the fact that access to justice means nothing to this government: not a single initiative by this government in a year and a half to provide access to justice for the public. I hope the Attorney General reads his newspaper because that is probably the only way he is going to realize what the problems are. He has absolutely no connection with the justice system otherwise.

We now see that legal aid is in jeopardy. All of a sudden the government is starting to wonder why legal aid numbers are skyrocketing. This is one of the most fundamental means of access to justice for the public offered in this province. I would think that legal aid, being the cornerstone of access to justice, would be something the Attorney General is intimately familiar with. He has been the Attorney General since September 1990.

Mr Winninger: October 1.

Mr Harnick: I stand corrected. I am advised by the parliamentary assistant that it was October 1, so he has bought himself three weeks in terms of my argument. It sure did not improve him any.

Legal aid is the cornerstone of access to justice in this province. To see that legal aid has been neglected by this government for over a year to the point where it is about to start making such radical changes that we may not have a legal aid program left in this province is appalling. The fact that they are consulting with people but not consulting with the lawyers who do the work within the legal aid system is frightening. The rumours abound.

What do we see coming out of the ministry? The spokesperson for the ministry, Rosemary Hnatiuk, says there is no need to panic. I suspect there is not a right-minded person in this province who is not prepared at this stage to start panicking when he or she watches the incompetence of this government in trying to deal with the justice system. It is positively pathetic.

Let's move on to the next area. I know I am going to have a great deal of time to speak about this later. We have an Attorney General who in an interview with the Lawyers Weekly in excess of a year ago talked about auto insurance and the very important need to restore access to the courts to innocent accident victims. We have heard what this government is going to do. They are going to take rights away from innocent accident victims. They are going to take them away from those who are most badly injured in order, in a camouflaged way, to say they have expanded the right of people to use the courts to claim for their damages when injured in a car accident. They are going to say that is access to justice: hurt those most badly hurt in order to pretend they have kept their promise.

The Attorney General spoke out a year ago. He said he was opposed to not giving innocent accident victims the right to bring actions in court for their damages. I hold the Attorney General to his statement. I hope he can stand up and fight for access to justice for these people. I am not optimistic.

The other area the Attorney General talks about in terms of access to justice is his much-discussed support and custody orders enforcement bill. I have to be very frank. This SCOE bill was something we laboured on last January and February. It finally passed this Legislature. We were taunted by the Attorney General because he wanted it passed quickly. He felt it was not passed quickly enough. Is it up and running yet? It is not up and running. The reason it is not up and running is that the government is using the people who are owed money, the people who need access to justice most in this province, women and children, and deferring the implementation of the SCOE bill till next year so that it can meet financial obligations in the present budget that is before this House, that pathetic $9.7-billion budget. They are using those people to try to reach their targets. I think every person on that side of the Legislature should be positively ashamed.

I will go on talking about access to justice. The Attorney General showed up a couple of weeks ago and told us the government was about to spend $1 million to reach people who were in default on support payments to their spouses and their children. "We are now going to get into a $1-million advertising campaign. If we advertise and spend the $1 million, we are going to get those people to pay." Nothing could be more ludicrous. Those deadbeats are not going to pay. They are not paying now and they are not going to pay because they see an ad on television. That is not going to make them pay.

What is the effect of that $1-million expenditure? I am now quoting from the Law Times dated October 21 to October 27, 1991:

"As well as saving money by delaying legal aid fee increases, the ministry has lopped off $850,000 from the support and custody enforcement branch's budget. That amount was designated for hiring staff to start changes to the way support payments are collected and remitted. The plan involving deductions of support payments from paycheques was to have begun this year but has now been put off until after the start of the new fiscal year next April.

1720

"That cut is ironic, inasmuch as Hampton criticized former Attorney General Ian Scott for lax enforcement of the current support payment program. As well, Hampton's first bill after being appointed last year proposed the direct deduction plan.

"Lawyer Fran Kiteley, a well-respected family law lawyer, stated she was disappointed by the news, saying: 'It is a disaster trying to work and get any results from SCOE. From my perspective, they appear to be terribly overworked, and the $850,000 that has now been lopped off their budget is $850,000 so that they can hire people to chase the deadbeats who don't pay for their support, who don't meet their support obligations.'"

It is appalling, and at the same time, what is the Attorney General doing? He is spending $1 million, and what is he doing with that $1 million? He is putting ads on television to say to the deadbeats: "Pay up. Please, pay up." Is he kidding anybody? He is taking away $850,000 so that people can be hired to chase the deadbeats, and then he is spending $1 million so that he can put ads on television to do public relations for his ministry and for himself. I think that is pathetic. It is shameful, and again, it shows that the Attorney General knows nothing about access to justice. He has no intention of implementing any programs related to access to justice, and the man does not know what he is doing. This whole ministry is breaking down.

I might add that when I pick up the Lawyers Weekly and I see articles about how the Attorney General and the deputy minister do not speak with one another, how they are fighting with one another, how they do not agree with one another, I wonder. Somebody had better start listening to somebody in that ministry, because the system of justice in this province is breaking down.

I suspect that save and except for probably having breakfast with the parliamentary assistant, the Attorney General does not speak to him either. I tell the Attorney General that he had better start to use the people who know what is going on and he had better start to rely on them. He cannot do it by himself, because what he is accomplishing by trying to do it by himself is absolutely nothing. He is taking this province in a backwards direction we will never recover from as far as the system of justice goes.

The other concern I have, and I raise it in terms of the context of access to justice, is that we now have to appoint a new assistant deputy minister. The Premier writes to the Attorney General and says "Hire Mr Code," because Clayton Ruby sent a letter to the Premier that said "Hire Mr Code." It is not the first time Clayton Ruby has directed the Premier in terms of the system of justice in this province. He had a scheme a while ago that was going to promote fast sentencing. That scheme never got off the ground, because when it was leaked to the public, the public was not happy about it.

Who is running the show in the Ministry of the Attorney General? Is it Clayton Ruby? Is it the Premier, who every now and then has to call the Attorney General to tell him to do something? Or is it the Attorney General?

I tell the Attorney General that he has a deputy minister who understands what the system of justice is all about. He should please let her tell him what to do and accept what she is telling him so that we do not go back 10 years or 20 years or 30 years. Maybe we should go back 10, 20 or 30 years, when we did not have the demand on the justice system, but surely this Attorney General is totally out of touch with what access to justice is all about.

The other concern I have about access to justice is that the people of my riding, the people of Willowdale in Metropolitan Toronto, have a real concern for what they see happening, for what they read about every single day in the newspapers. They have a concern that in the Metro area we now have the statistics of murders and sexual assaults being given on a daily basis, much the same way as baseball scores. My constituents are concerned that their neighbourhoods are no longer safe to live in and that they are deteriorating with every day. They do not see the Attorney General doing anything to help maintain their communities and the safety and dignity of their lives.

What do they see? I will tell members what they see. They see a court system in disarray. They see a police force that is working overtime to try to keep the streets safe. They see a police force that lays criminal charges. They see criminals attending for trial, going in one door of the courthouse and almost 20 minutes later coming out the other door laughing at the system of justice. There is no longer any system of deterrence left in this province, and without that system of deterrence, my constituents are not safe in their neighbourhoods.

I do not see the Attorney General taking any steps whatsoever to deal with this problem. I have very grave concern for the safety of our neighbourhoods and I have very grave concern that the Attorney General is neglecting the important aspects of life in the Metro area.

The other area of access to justice -- I remind you, Mr Speaker, that "access to justice" is the term used by the parliamentary assistant, and that is what this debate is all about -- is, what about the victims of crime? What access do they have to justice? I will tell members what this government's history has been in the last year.

Last February, the standing committee on administration of justice, at the behest of my party and the member for Burlington South, asked for and received 12 hours to debate in committee, pursuant to standing order 123, victims' rights and what happens to victims who are harmed as a result of a crime occurring. The 12-hour schedule was prepared and witnesses were subpoenaed. They were prepared to attend and to tell the justice committee what they thought the government should be doing about the rights of victims of crime.

On the very day those hearings were supposed to start, what did the Attorney General do? He decided to have a private, closed conference dealing with victims' rights. He invited all the same witnesses who were supposed to be at the justice committee to come and meet him in private. The effect of that was that he scuttled the whole opportunity to talk about victims' rights in a public forum and to give the government some guidance about what it should be doing to protect victims of crime.

I remind members again, the context of how I look at this is that victims' rights are very important at a time when crime is going up every day in the large area of Metro Toronto. To this date, I hear noises from the Attorney General periodically paying lipservice to victims' rights, but I have not seen a single, solitary, concrete piece of legislation come from this government. This is a government, I might add, that in the past voted for a victims' bill of rights. In fact, the NDP proposed a victims' bill of rights when it was in opposition. But what did they do when the member for Burlington South, by way of a private member's bill, brought a victims' bill of rights before this Legislature? They voted against it. Where is their commitment to access to justice? They have no such commitment.

1730

It is in this milieu that Bills 28 and 29 finally appear before this Legislature again. It is interesting that in his opening remarks the parliamentary assistant tried to pretend this was an NDP government bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. They could not develop a piece of legislation like this if their lives depended on it. This bill was purely and simply the result of the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David.

Of interest about this bill is the fact that it was developed by the former Attorney General, not just by consulting. This bill was based not just on consultation but collaboration, something this government should learn, because every time it tries a piece of its own legislation -- we have seen it in the labour relations field and we are going to see it again -- it says, "We consulted widely." Well, their definition of consulting is to make a decision and tell people about it afterwards but not ask for their input or opinion.

This bill should teach this government a lesson, and the lesson is that if it wants to get a good piece of legislation before this Legislature, it should not just consult after the fact but make people the real players. They should make those people whom they are consulting with the real players, part of a collaboration process. But this government will never do that, because it does not trust anybody. They only trust people who are within their own ranks. They only trust the big unions. They only trust NDP rank-and-file members. They do not trust anyone from outside their walls. That is why every single piece of legislation they have initiated has been a disaster. Every single piece of legislation they have initiated has had to be changed. I believe this government has no idea about the justice system in this province. They have no idea now, and with every day I am more and more sure that they are going in reverse.

I would like to add a couple of words about Bills 28 and 29. These bills in fact offer a form of access to justice. I recommend to the parliamentary assistant and to the Attorney General to read what the former Attorney General said in the Gazette. I will even provide them with the dates. It is the Gazette, published by the Law Society of Upper Canada, volume 24, number 1, dated March 1990.

The former Attorney General had no illusions about this bill being the be-all and end-all in terms of access to justice. Now I know, once this bill is passed, this government is going to take all the credit for it and is going to use this bill to tell everyone it really believes in access to justice. They are going to stand on every street corner in every town, village and city in this province taking bows for the bill and using it to show that they believe in access to justice. The member for St George-St David said that this bill is not a bill that the public was burning up about. He said quite frankly that it is a bill that will help access to justice in a very limited area. It is not an omnibus bill dealing with access to justice; it is a bill that deals with access to justice in terms of class proceedings.

I would just like to tell anybody who is watching this debate today that when the NDP members are standing on the street corners, taking bows and saying they believe in access to justice because they passed the bill of the member for St George-St David, please do not believe them. They do not believe in access to justice. They are sitting around watching the justice system deteriorate and now they are going to use this to try to say, "We really believe in access to justice." They do not even know what access to justice is and they do not know what the court system, the judicial system and the law enforcement system in this province entail, despite the fact that they have been the government since September 1990.

Just a word about this bill: It is a good bill. It provides a new system dealing with class action claims. Section 2 of the bill describes what a representative plaintiff is: one who commences proceedings on his or her own behalf and on behalf of members of a class. Under section 3, a defendant faced with two or more actions in which there are common issues can move to have the proceedings certified and a representative plaintiff named, thus eliminating a multiplicity of lawsuits that might have to be defended. Under section 4, any party to a proceeding against two or more defendants may at any stage move to certify the action as a class action. Under that section there will be a motion for certification which is mandatory. The plaintiff who wishes to be certified must move for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding. There is a low threshold test for certification directed to the economic and efficient use of the justice system.

I might add that the idea of certifying and having to show that there is a cause of action is a very important thing, because one of the things we hear when dealing with class action bills is that when this legislation is passed the courts will be running rampant with people trying to bring class actions and that this, in conjunction with contingency fees, is just going to cause an overwhelming surge in litigation in this province. That has not been the effect in the United States, where they have class action bills similar to this, and in the province of Quebec, which has a class action bill similar to this. I think the member for St George-St David, the former Attorney General, has understood quite well what the concerns were. The bill has the mechanisms to prevent that huge surge of litigation.

The bill also sets up a fund to help plaintiffs prosecute an action in so far as disbursements are concerned but not to pay for their legal fees. That is a very significant aspect of this bill. The bill also maintains the same cost provisions we have always had in this province in so far as the costs following the actual success or failure of the litigation are concerned. There is no question when one reads these bills that there is an attempt to bend over backwards to balance the needs of all the litigants -- the plaintiffs and the defendants.

For that reason the former Attorney General is to be commended, because he has brought to this Legislature a bill that is significant within the limitations he himself set out. It is not the be-all and the end-all of access to justice, but it is a bill he can certainly be proud of. All the accolades for this bill are deserved by the member for St George-St David, the former Attorney General. This bill had nothing to do with the NDP government, other than the fact that it took it off the shelf and then took one year to bring it here, to get it through second reading. I think that speaks volumes.

I have nothing further to say about this bill at this time. I will be supporting the bill. My party will be supporting the bill. I think that in terms of access to justice, this government has a long way to go, and we had better see some initiatives soon, although I am not optimistic.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Are there questions and/or comments? Seeing none, would the parliamentary assistant have a few closing remarks?

Mr Winninger: The member for Willowdale has brought forward a whole litany of complaints about the justice system, and certainly this is not the forum nor the focus to deal with them in general.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought I heard you ask, before the summing up, whether anyone had any comments about my remarks. No one had any comments about my remarks and now we should be summing up this bill so that we can get it through second reading before the next Christmas comes and goes.

The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr Winninger: As a matter of fact, had I not been interrupted by the member for Willowdale, I would have proceeded to address one of the substantive issues he raised, and that is the one of access to legal aid. Certainly the demands on our legal aid funding will diminish when several individuals can pursue the same cause of action in the form of a class proceeding. Instead of having hundreds of individuals or thousands of individuals applying for legal aid assistance, under the provisions of this bill only one person need apply.

Because of the funding provisions that are contemplated under Bill 29, where a fund has been established to pay for some of these initial disbursements that are required to move forward a class action proceeding, there no longer may be the same recourse to the severely circumscribed funding that legal aid is able to offer. What is new about this bill? It contemplates court-approved contingency fee arrangements that allow a plaintiff in a class action proceeding to move a case forward, to enter into arrangements with the lawyer which may, to some extent, be contingent on the ultimate success of that proceeding. Even if a plaintiff should lose, there is provision under this fund that is being created that an unsuccessful plaintiff can be indemnified by the fund. The reason that can operate smoothly is that a successful plaintiff will be required to pay back some of the proceeds of the litigation into the fund.

The member for Ottawa West, who has returned to the chamber, raised an interesting point earlier on. He suggested that this government was not paying attention to the issue of intervenor funding. The member for Ottawa West should know that the intervenor funding issue is under review by Professor William Bogart, whose report is expected in January 1992. Both the class proceedings fund and intervenor funding will increase access to justice, but this class proceedings legislation only deals with court actions. Intervenor funding is a matter for administrative tribunals and certainly it would not be appropriate to join it to this particular bill.

As I said, the issue of class proceedings is indeed a separate matter from intervenor funding. I note for those who are interested that there is a first annual conference organized in Quebec City dedicated to the memory of the distinguished former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Yves Pratte, also a former director of Air Canada following his retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada. This conference is devoted to class action law both in Ontario and Quebec. This conference, which is to be scheduled right here in Toronto next year, will investigate and examine areas of similarity between Quebec class action and Ontario law. This is an area that shows Quebec and Ontario have a great deal to learn from one another.

I would like to review very briefly the salient highlights of the proposed legislation. This is a procedural change; it is not substantive. It is a very sophisticated procedure.

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What we are seeing here today is the parliamentary assistant filibustering his own bill, looking at the clock, trying to fill the time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

Mr Winninger: This is a very sophisticated procedure, hitherto unprecedented in Ontario, that has taken a number of months to refine and to perfect. It has also taken a number of months to establish the fund that will enable class proceedings to move forward on the basis I have described.

Those members on the opposite side of the House who would complain about the delay certainly should be cognizant that this is flagship legislation. It has taken a number of months to carefully design. There is no reason why the members on the opposite side of the House should complain about delay. It is based on the unanimous recommendations of a broadly based advisory committee, as I said, of business, environmentalists, consumers, insurers and lawyers.

Finally, I allude once again to the new cost provisions which are certainly precedent-setting, including the fund for disbursements which will no longer deter potential plaintiffs from initiating and proceeding with class action proceedings. There is a new provision that allows lawyers to charge a contingency fee, subject of course to judicial control. Finally, a plaintiff who may lose can be indemnified by the fund. As I said earlier, the plaintiff who wins must give a percentage of the proceeds back to the fund, so this will help to perpetuate the fund and allow other class action litigants access to justice as well.

In conclusion, the kind of enlargement of the access to justice called for by the members for Ottawa West and Willowdale and previously by the member for St George-St David, who deserves no small credit for his involvement in helping to design the contents of the bill, has now been met by the provisions of this legislation. On that note, I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: We have dealt with Bills 28 and 29 simultaneously although they are two separate bills. We will have two separate questions.

Mr Winninger has moved second reading of Bill 28. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Winninger has moved second reading of Bill 29. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Bills ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

The House adjourned at 1753.