Hansard Transcript 1997-Sept-24 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): John Snobelen's new education legislation will not achieve what parents, students and teachers want and expect from this government. Rather than enhancing our system, all partners in education now agree that this bill and the minister's tactics will only lead to an inferior quality of education with inferior results for students.

Look at what has happened so far because of the cuts to education: 28 school boards have made cuts to special education; 25 have cancelled junior kindergarten; nine, library services; 50 have made cuts to transportation services; and 49 have cut elementary and secondary school staff. This has caused class sizes to grow to critical levels, and no, this legislation will neither protect nor reduce class sizes.

The minister and this document only pay lip-service to limiting class sizes. It doesn't give details and it doesn't give numbers. If the government were truly committed to protecting class sizes, it would call my bill, Bill 110, which not only protects class sizes but protects and enshrines a pupil's right to learn in a meaningful way in an appropriate class size.

There's no question about it: The government spin, the advertising, the PR gurus all have the right fluff, but the people of Ontario know that Shakespeare was right when he said, "All that glitters is not gold."

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is day 3 of the North Bay Days of Action and the activity mounts. There are rallies being held, there are educational seminars; people are getting together and expressing their outrage at the actions of the Harris government.

There are a lot of letters of support coming to the organizers as well; for example, a letter to Lana Mitchell and Dawson Pratt, who are co-chairs of the North Bay Days of Action, from the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. They indicate that many child care workers from the north will be coming to North Bay on the weekend and "demonstrating that there is real opposition to the Tory program. The child care community will be there," they say in their own words, "because we are alarmed at the government moves to direct public funding to programs that don't provide for high-quality child care services/programs such as tax credits and deductions or vouchers for unlicensed/unregulated care. Implementing workfare will place children, already at risk due to poverty, in double jeopardy thanks to care provisions without even minimal health and safety standards."

While there will be many expressions of protest, there will also be some celebration: child care workers who will be celebrating the court decision that says the Harris government's attack on pay equity was unconstitutional; and of course the stunning retreat on Bill 136. As Dawson Pratt, one of the co-chairs, says, "Fighting back works."

"Our slogan is `Organize, Educate, Resist.' Our goal is `Take Back Ontario.' Ordinary people can achieve change when they stick together."

JULIE BROOKS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): What do a collection of tents from the local Canadian Tire store and a love of the outdoors have in common? If you are a 20-year-old Sunderland woman, it resulted in her receiving the prestigious Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award. His Royal Highness Prince Philip presented Julie Brooks, who had already received the bronze and silver awards, with the Gold Duke of Edinburgh Award, Young Canadians Challenge, at a recent ceremony in Toronto.

Julie won the award for planning a five-day outdoor excursion which saw three canoes of participants paddling and portaging through five lakes in the Minden area. She had to acquire the food, ready the equipment, map out the route and lead the expedition.

Community service requirements are also prerequisite to qualifying for the award. Julie served as the 1994 Sunderland Ambassador of the Fair, taught Sunday school at St Andrew's United Church in Sunderland and performed with the school band.

Julie grew up in Sunderland, where she attended Sunderland public school and graduated from Brock high school in Cannington.

I congratulate Julie for her award-winning accomplishments and I wish her success as she attends her second year at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, where she is studying outdoor education.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Sound the bugles of retreat. The Conservative government of Mike Harris appears to be in complete disarray these days as it lurches from crisis to crisis, seemingly rudderless and having lost its nerve.

Instead of producing a compliant, acquiescent population with its bullying, intimidating tactics, the Harris regime has annoyed, antagonized and angered the people of Ontario. The very rich and the privileged may cheer on their man Mike, but the people on Main Street are beginning to see through the Nonsense Revolution, which seeks to confront and divide and to destroy the institutions and programs built with the sweat and struggle of so many in our province.

The Premier can huff and puff and bluster at what he calls the enemy of the people, but when his Conservative Party hits the skids in the polls, mighty Mike will run for cover and take John Snobelen and Elizabeth Witmer with him.

Those the Harris crowd sought to intimidate stood up to the bully and the bully has blinked. Panic has set into the nonsense revolutionaries as policies change weekly, daily or even hourly.

But the gentler, kinder, more accommodating image that Mike's public relations handlers are trying to portray will fool no one. It infuriates the angry, extremist right wing of the Conservative caucus and wins no converts among those who have seen the real Harris revolutionaries in action.

Listen for the beeping sound and get out of the way if you're behind the Harris truck. It's backing up in full retreat.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Women's Network on Health and Environment is holding a public preview of the film Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer, to be held at 8 pm on Thursday, September 25, in the medical sciences auditorium at the University of Toronto. The preview will be followed by discussion. I urge all of those who are interested in prevention and treatment of breast cancer to go see that film because it makes the connections between environmental carcinogens and cancer.

I say to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment, it is now nearly 18 months since all parties in this Legislature voted to establish a committee to consider the banning or phasing out of carcinogenic substances as a step towards the primary prevention of cancer. I made that resolution, it was passed by this House and there's been absolutely no response from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment except to pass the buck. After two years in office and no action, cancer patients and their families have no confidence that either of you even understands what primary prevention of cancer is all about.

You have established Cancer Care Ontario, but we need to know that direction for prevention is set there and that you will refer the Report on the Primary Prevention of Cancer to the board of Cancer Care Ontario for consideration and action. I urge both ministers to take that into account.

1340

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition stood to question the Minister of Education. The leader used a constituent of mine as an example of a student suffering because of ministry cuts. The member knew his example was a local board of education decision. It was not connected to any policy or direction from the Ministry of Education.

It is from sheer frustration with local school staff and the board that these parents contacted the Leader of the Opposition. The parents, who live a few houses from the Wyevale school, have a real issue. Their concerns should have been resolved at the local level.

Under the amendments to the Education Act, parents will have greater say in their children's education and school policies. Bill 160, if passed, will give parents an opportunity to be more involved in the direction of education in their district. With the implementation of these changes, incidents such as this will not happen again.

I have spoken to the people at Wyevale. I understand their anger at the decision that the staff at the board of education have made. The Wyevale school board trustee is quoted as saying, "She was not privy to the decision, since it was an administrative decision, and the board of trustees was not consulted." It is the elected officials who are responsible to their constituents, not staff.

It is not cuts to education that are causing the problem; it is local decisions being made without consultation to those affected or those elected.

Tonight's meeting with the Simcoe County Board of Education I hope will resolve this matter, and the pupils will be in their proper school.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The Minister of Education is making up students' educational futures as he goes along. Wasn't it just yesterday that the minister was describing his new school year as one of the hallmarks of his educational reform? Today he is saying there won't be an extended year after all. How fast can this minister change his mind and how can anybody know what is coming next?

Parents have some very real concerns about what the Harris government has already done to education -- they are truly worried about what this Minister of Education wants to do -- and the only thing they know for sure is that the needs of their kids are not what is driving the agenda.

Parents have 10 top questions for John Snobelen that they want answered:

(10) Will you guarantee that capping class sizes will not mean losses elsewhere?

(9) Will all the boards in Ontario have junior kindergarten in September 1998?

(8) Are libraries, music programs, gym and special education part of the classroom as you define it?

(7) How much tax is business going to pay for education, and will their taxes be pooled?

(6) What are the specific powers and duties of school councils?

(5) How are you going to make it a law that schools have to have school councils, and what will you do to schools that can't manage it?

(4) Which positions are you going to designate as non-teaching positions?

(3) If education taxes stay in the community in which they're raised, how do you plan to guarantee equality?

(2) Can you guarantee that in cities such as Toronto and Ottawa there will not be massive cuts to public boards in order to make up for inequities between public and separate school funding?

(1) Question number one from parents: Can you guarantee that we will see a specific and detailed funding model by November 1?

Most of all they want the Minister of Education --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Let me say to the Minister of Environment and Energy that, contrary to his hope that things would die off in terms of further requests for a public inquiry into Plastimet, things continue to grow and pressure mounts.

On Saturday, the Hamilton Spectator said, in part:

"...this newspaper has called four times for an investigation. Today's instalment makes it five.... When it comes to the fire, the response to the fire, events leading up to and possibly contributing to the fire and the legacy of the fire, the Harris government's policy is clear: Deny, deny, deny. Given that, we can't promise you an end to Plastimet editorials. Something is really wrong here, and we just can't get past that."

Further: "Were the right measures taken at the right times in an effort to get Plastimet owners to correct fire code violations? If appropriate measures were taken, are fire code enforcement measures impotent? Does Ontario need new fire code regulations that would allow authorities to force quick compliance on people like the Plastimet owners? Did local police respond with the appropriate crowd control measures when the fire broke out? Did the local fire department respond appropriately with the right materials and strategy for dealing with this fire? Did the Ministry of the Environment respond appropriately? Should area residents have been evacuated sooner than they were?"

Yesterday the regional chairman and mayor of the city sent out a joint news release calling for a public inquiry to be held in the interest of our community and others. The regional municipality of Niagara has said they want one in the interest of their municipality and ours. We need a public inquiry into Plastimet.

SENIORS SEMINAR

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in a seniors seminar I sponsored on Friday afternoon, September 19, 1997, in the city of St Catharines. The seminar, partnered with Tabor Manor Mennonite Homes residents and staff, such as Rudy Siemens and Pam Pauls, was covered by Cogeco community television and attended by seniors from across the Niagara region.

The seniors heard about the benefits of the Ontario drug benefit plan with Gary Michaluk of the Ministry of Health; how to avoid scam artists, with Niagara Regional Police Detective Bob Glen; and the key components of the Ministry of Transportation seniors driver licensing program, with Steve Kivell of that ministry.

Without a doubt, this government is committed to seniors and safety, and certainly avenues for public awareness are important. In fact Detective Glen said that there had been fewer scams reported since he spoke at my last seminar on April 4, 1997, which was also televised. Certainly, seniors seminars are one way to promote that kind of awareness. Again, my thanks to all those involved.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 45th report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by this House.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yesterday the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) raised a point of privilege with respect to a Ministry of Education advertising campaign. The government House leader (Mr Johnson) and the third party House leader also made submissions with respect to this matter. The member for St Catharines argued that the ad campaign conveyed the impression that the passage of the Education Quality Improvement Act is a foregone conclusion.

I have reviewed the ad in question, and I must say that I cannot find within it any evidence that the phrase, "is implementing a plan," relates to any specific proceeding of this House. In fact the reference to a plan, in my view, leaves the impression that there are a number of components involved, some of which may certainly be legislation but not necessarily one particular bill.

My point is this: If the education bill introduced Monday does not pass, the government may still have in its plan to reduce class size by some other means. The terminology used in the ad does not rely upon any particular piece of legislation to project its message; indeed, it would still make sense to a listener even in the absence of the education bill.

In short, the more generic nature of this ad leads me to the conclusion that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, I may throw someone out today. I've been promising for a while, and I may fulfil that promise, member for Ottawa-Rideau.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. I understand he's just now making his way into the House.

Yesterday in this Legislature I raised the question with you of three Ottawa hospitals that were going to be closed two years before the necessary renovations were completed at a fourth Ottawa hospital, and that 23,000 patients would be left in the lurch as a result. You said something that came as tremendous news to us in the province of Ontario. You said "that if the physical space isn't available, then nobody will move anywhere." What you did was you told us that there is some flexibility attached to the dates on which hospitals are supposed to be closed. I just wanted to confirm that for those three hospitals in Ottawa, and for that matter for hospitals everywhere in the province that have been set to close as a result of the work of your commission, there is now some flexibility attached to those dates of closure.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Until the commission says otherwise, they are their dates, they are their directions. They are bound in law. All of us are bound to those dates. There will be no change in the dates.

What I said in response to a hypothetical question yesterday, a ridiculous hypothetical question which was meant to scaremonger the people of Ottawa and the people of Ontario, that somehow all the common sense from all the administrators, doctors and nurses would be thrown out of the system, and that 24,000 people who rely on emergency rooms today would somehow be out on the street because the six new emergency rooms, in addition to the ones they have today, the more capacity for patients that's envisioned for Ottawa by the Health Services Restructuring Commission, that if that wasn't ready that people would be thrown out in the streets -- it's a ridiculous question, it's hypothetical and I'm surprised he's pursuing it again today.

Mr McGuinty: Yesterday you told us there was some flexibility attached to the dates on which hospitals are supposed to close. Do you know what happened yesterday? We should all understand this. Yesterday the minister slipped and for one moment he assumed some responsibility as the minister responsible for the health of patients in Ontario. Imagine that. It was a momentary lapse. He's proved that to us today. Perhaps he's fully recovered and is now assuming his role that he has assumed under the Harris government.

Wellesley is slated to close in March 1999. Is that date also flexible, Minister? Because that's what you said yesterday. You said that if the space wasn't there, if the supports weren't in place, then that date could be changed. Northwestern is slated to close very soon, November 3 of this year. There is a very real concern there as well about accommodation and supports. Is that date also flexible? Is there flexibility, yes or no?

Hon Mr Wilson: Under the law, the flexibility can only be exercised by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I suggest the honourable member ask the commission that question.

Mr McGuinty: You can't have it both ways, and that's not in keeping with the story you delivered to us in this House yesterday. Yesterday you said -- I was taken aback because you were so reasonable -- that if the need should arise, if it's in the interests of Ontario patients, if the supports aren't there, if the renovations haven't been completed, then, "Yes, I will act to ensure that the hospitals don't close." That's what you said. I didn't say that.

What you said yesterday, Minister -- you should understand this -- was a good thing. I want to support you in that. What I want you to do now is to stand up and confirm that what you said yesterday is what you again believe in today, that there is some flexibility attached to hospital closure dates and we will do whatever is necessary to protect health care in Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, I've learned one thing in the last 24 hours, and the old adage that politicians shouldn't answer hypothetical ridiculous questions is something I shouldn't have done. The honourable member said, "If," -- and there was a big "if" -- "X, Y and Z happen." He's correct in his quote back to me, and we all have the Hansard. I said I'm sure the commission would exercise flexibility if there's no place for those patients to go.

What I want to know from the honourable member is, are you in favour of restructuring or not? That's what I want to know; that's what the voters of Ontario want to know. You're sitting on the fence. Yes, your cousins in Ottawa, the Liberals, cut us $2 billion. You've gotten away with absolute -- you should be disgraced on that one, but no, no, the voters decided to put the Liberals back in office in Ottawa. That's fine. We're coping with that. We're restructuring the system. We're making the system better for patients.

I don't know where you are in this equation, Mr McGuinty, and I won't give up till I find out where your party stands on hospital restructuring in this province.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to return to the case of Gordie Kirwan, because I believe that case to be very instructive in telling us something about you, where you're coming from and whether or not you have a genuine interest in the wellbeing of our students in Ontario.

You will recall that several months ago now I brought to this House the case of Gordie Kirwan, a young man who is 22 years of age, handsome, strapping, in perfect health but for the fact that he has the mind of a three-year-old. Gordie doesn't play with a football; he plays with his teddy bear.

His parents have delivered the message to you and I have as well. You promised that you would change the law in Ontario so that Gordie could continue his education, because as it stands right now, his parents are paying over $1,000 a month to allow their son to continue with his education.

Why should parents and students across the province believe you've got students' interests at heart if you're not even going to look after Gordie Kirwan?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I believe I answered this question for the Leader of the Opposition last week. I told the Leader of the Opposition that we had agreed, I have agreed, to compensate Gordie Kirwan's family for the costs of the program this year. We have done that. We've lived up to our obligation.

But the larger question is, and I pointed this out to the Leader of the Opposition, can we learn something from this case that will help other people, other young adults in the same circumstance across Ontario? I think the answer to that question is yes. We're working now in developing a policy that will help all the young people who are in that circumstance right across the province.

Mr McGuinty: I want to take issue once again with the minister when he says he has paid the tuition fees, because he has not. The other day in this House I produced the receipt issued to Gordie's mother showing she had paid over $1,000 for tuition fees for the month of September. She paid that, that's her hard-earned money and you should stop saying that you paid it.

We're not just talking about Gordie here; we're talking about the thousands of Gordies right across the province. Members should understand that it was over two years ago that Gordie's dad came across an unknown guy by the name of Mike Harris, then leader of the third party. He bought him a cup of coffee and he explained to him the problems they were having in getting education for their son. Mike Harris, then leader of the third party, said, "Don't worry, because if I become Premier I will fix this."

You've been in power over two years. They're still paying for the tuition fees. You've broken your promise to Gordie's parents, you've broken your promise to Gordie and you've broken the promise to thousands of others right across the province who are like Gordie. Minister, you tell us you're going to fix it. When are you going to do it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, heard my reply just a few moments ago when I said that the ministry had agreed to, I had agreed to, compensate Gordie's parents for the cost of tuition, and we have done that. I pointed that out to the Leader of the Opposition last week.

I think the Leader of the Opposition in his question recognizes the fact that for some time governments, Liberal governments, NDP governments, have been petitioned to take care of adults over 21 who have some chance of education, using education services, and are precluded by the Education Act. We are taking that on. We're working very hard with my colleagues to get a policy and a program that will work. This is not a simple matter. Obviously, there are issues of integration versus segregation. There are different opinions on how this should be handled within the community. We are working to find a solution to this.

But let me say again to the Leader of the Opposition that we have made payment to the Kirwans and lived up to our obligation to them.

1400

Mr McGuinty: I think this small snippet of the problems faced by one particular family, in terms of trying to have their son educated, is most instructive in terms of the approach this government brings to people in need generally. Gordie Kirwan may never pay taxes, he will likely never vote, and you have failed to live up to your responsibility to him.

The Premier made a promise over two years ago that if he became Premier he would fix this, he would make a change in the law. You personally have met with the Kirwans; you personally phoned Mrs Kirwan and said you would fix it. You said you would ensure that she wouldn't have to pay any money starting in September of this year. She's paid money; they've cashed her cheque. You told me that you sent her a cheque to reimburse her. I can tell you that as of today she has not received it. What I want to ask you once again is, when are you going to do something for Gordie and the thousands of others just like him right across this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me once again, for probably the fifth time in the last week, make this very clear to the Leader of the Opposition: Gordie is in school. We have agreed to compensate Gordie's family for the cost of being in school and we have issued payment. That is the status of this file.

If this reveals anything, it's that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to play politics with this kind of issue, just like he played politics yesterday by trying to inflame people across the province, by trying to inflame teachers across the province, by inferring that a section of the bill that we put forward in this House would somehow ban strikes when he should know as a lawyer that it will not, when he should have got the legal opinion that it will not. He was clearly off base yesterday; he's clearly off base today. He should get his facts straight.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The opposition gallery has in it Mr Ross McClellan, a previous member for Bellwoods. Welcome.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Health. You've cut $23 million from the operating budgets of hospitals in Hamilton. That's a figure that you and your officials have announced, and that takes into account a $7-million reinvestment that you announced. The $23-million cut means that Hamilton hospitals are being forced to discharge patients earlier than ever. In fact, they're being forced to discharge patients when those patients are still in need of care.

Some of that care will be provided by the homemakers program. But people in Hamilton are getting a letter -- and have gotten a letter -- from the Visiting Homemakers Association saying to them that the homemakers association has no more budget to provide them with needed homemaking services, that in fact homemaking services are being cut, they're simply not going to be available. How can you tell people on the one hand, while you're cutting hospital budgets, that they're going to get care in the community and care in their homes when they get a letter from the homemakers services saying there's no more care available?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'd appreciate if the honourable member would give me a copy of that letter. It's certainly contradictory to anything I've heard from Hamilton. I will personally check the association. We were there just a few weeks ago to announce millions of dollars for home care in Hamilton.

Secondly, I will say that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health, it is the responsibility of the hospitals, to make sure a plan is in place before they discharge people. It's not legal for them to discharge people without a care plan in place. If you have individual cases, I suggest you take those to the hospitals. They have a fiduciary responsibility to look after those patients.

More money is going into home care in Hamilton, so I'd be quite curious to find out what that letter says.

Mr Hampton: I'll quote to the minister from this letter:

"As many of you have already experienced, the hours provided to clients are being reduced, yet the number of short visits is increasing and the complexity of client care is greater....

"We know that the reduction in hours is being felt by clients.... Some clients are purchasing homemaking services to make up the difference in the hours dropped from public funding."

That's what the letter says, Minister. It says that homemakers can't provide the services that are needed and people who can't get the services any longer have to go out and buy them privately. This is called two-tier health care. You get a little bit from the public but then you have to spend more out of your own pocket. It's a lot like American health care: You purchase the services privately.

Minister, isn't that what's really happening? You cut the hospitals, you also limit the homemakers and people are put in the position where they have to spend money out of their own pocket to get private homemaker services. That's what's really happening, isn't it?

Hon Mr Wilson: The Hamilton-Wentworth home care budget has gone up from $23.5 million to $43.9 million, an 86.4% increase. They have more than their fair share of home care in the province. It's one of the highest per capita areas in the province. I will be personally looking into that letter from the home care association. It sounds like a bit of politics to me.

Yes, the community care access centre is reporting an expected deficit of $1.1 million. That isn't unusual. That's part of the ongoing process. We project at the beginning of the year. The local community tells us what their demand is, we give them the funding, and of course the funding's up dramatically over the last little while. My note indicates that staff are working every day with the people in Hamilton to address the demands. Their community care access centre is one of I think two in the province that isn't up and running, and Mr Jackson's trying to get that going. We've had some problems there.

It's not true that there's less money; there's clearly more money in Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, in the past it is quite true that you have covered deficits at the end, but let me quote from this letter again. The Visiting Homemakers Association "and all other service provider agencies, have recently received the disturbing news that the home care program must stay within its allocated budget from now on. In previous years, the Ministry of Health has provided additional funding to cover any deficit incurred during the year by the home care program. It will no longer do this."

The real issue here is you don't have a clue what's going on. You cut money from the hospitals, they have to put people out into the community earlier, the demand is increasing. Even your restructuring commission has made it very clear from its documents that they don't know what the demand is going to be as this keeps on going with people coming home earlier from hospitals as a result of the cuts. You simply don't know what the demand is going to be and yet you have told homemaking services that they're not going to be able to build the deficits that they have been able to do in the past to ensure that people get cared for. This is not the hospitals' problem, Minister. This is your problem. When are you going to resolve it?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll refer the last question to the Honourable Cam Jackson.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to acknowledge the member's supplementary question because she comes from a community, in London, where she has seen the successful model, as brought forward by this government, fully implemented to streamline the process, to bring in the accountability systems that were missing in home care in this province. This government brought that in two years ago, proper assessment criteria for patients.

The problem with the opposition members, especially the former government, is that they had five years to stabilize this environment and create stable criteria. This government believes that a person in London should get the same level of care as a person in Hamilton, Windsor or Ottawa. This government has brought in those criteria so that fairness and additional funding -- I remind the member there's 170 million new dollars going into long-term care and community-based supports in this province and Hamilton is getting its fair share.

1410

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. I wonder if the Minister of Education can explain the confusing state that he has created.

A week ago he announced that children would be going back to school a week early. Not only did he announce it, but it was part of his propaganda piece. It was a story he spun on to The National, the CBC news, that night. Then we find out this week, in fact this morning, that students aren't going to be going back to school a week early after all. We're told that someone in the Ministry of Education did some arithmetic and figured out that if they sent students back to school a week early, it would cost some more money, and that would interfere with the $1 billion the government wants to take out of education. If you send kids back to school a week early, you can't get the full $1 billion.

I want to ask the minister this simple question, will students be going back to school a week early in 1998 or not?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): First, the leader of the third party has it wrong. We did receive a report a week and a half ago that made the recommendation that students go back to school the week before Labour Day. We received that recommendation along with others. I said then, and said today, that we support the thinking behind those recommendations. We did not adopt them all at that time, nor did we adopt that one.

I said today very quickly, because there are some concerns with parents -- particularly rural members have brought it to my attention, in the rural parts of Ontario -- that an earlier start to school would be a problem, so we moved today to say we will work with the school communities, we will work with our colleagues in the House of all political parties, to find a way to get the in-school time of students up to the level recommended by the EIC without having to expand the students' school year.

We will accept the recommendation of the EIC regarding teachers going back to school a week before the students, because we believe it's important to have them be ready for the students when they arrive at the beginning of the school year. That's what we announced today. It's in response to the requests we have heard from people from --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education gets more confusing as days go on. Go into a school. Teachers are already in their schools before Labour Day. Everybody knows that. Your announcement was very specific: Students were going to be in the schools before Labour Day. You were going to add a week before Labour Day to the school year, but now you've done the arithmetic and you find out it doesn't work.

I want to ask you about your $1-million dollar propaganda campaign, because that seems to be a waste too. You're out spending $1 million on propaganda. I have been in touch with a number of schools: Robert Moore school in my community, which has to do fund-raising with students to pay for computers; Alexander MacKenzie, which has to do fund-raising with students to pay for playground equipment. Why don't you stick your $1-million propaganda campaign where it will do some good? Why don't you quit your campaign and give the moneys to the schools so they can buy the computers they need?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Speaker, you looked a little concerned.

The Speaker: I was just as worried as you were for a minute there, but it wasn't out of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps the leader of the third party would like to read this document before he asks questions in the House. It's called The Road Ahead. It's from the Education Improvement Commission and it spells out their recommendations, one of which is that the province move to have teachers in school a full week before students arrive. We have adopted that.

We said this morning that we believe instructional time and time on tests for our students in the province can be increased without expanding the school calendar. The EIC reports to us they have recommended two thirds of that in their report. We think we can find the other third inside of that time. I have asked my colleagues to help me to consult with people to design just that.

Regarding our advertisements that have gone out, the mailout has gone out to every household in the province to tell them about a better education in Ontario. We think that's good information. If the leader of the third party is worried about costs, he might want to look at the full-colour brochure his government sent out to inform the people of Ontario. He might want to read the letter from the then Minister of Education, with the picture of the then Minister of Education and compare that with our --

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Quinte, come to order, please.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm referring to the backgrounder that he put out last week when he made his announcement. In that backgrounder on page 2 it says, "The Education Improvement Commission has recommended that the school year for elementary students be increased by two weeks and for secondary school students by three weeks," and then it says, "The legislation would allow the province to act on these recommendations."

It didn't say that the teachers would be in an extra week; it said the students. It also justified that on the basis of increasing the contact between teachers and students. Maybe the minister can explain how he increases the contact between teachers and students if he legislates that teachers go back, but not students.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've got to say I'm not shocked at the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the question from the member for Algoma, because the member for Algoma usually has read the reports and usually is briefed upon this subject, and he apparently is not.

The Education Improvement Commission suggested that we increase the amount of instructional time that students sit. They suggested two weeks for elementary school students; they suggested three weeks for secondary school students. We think it's a good idea. We think it will improve education. We think it will improve the students' performance. They suggested that we reduce the number of exam days allowed for secondary school students, the number of PA days that happen during the school year.

I can tell the member for Algoma that I was speaking with parents on Monday of this week and they suggested that if we had teachers come in the week before students, perhaps they wouldn't lose all the half days at the start of the year getting ready for the students, perhaps they could have more instructional time at the end of June, perhaps they could use the calendar better to find those five additional days. That would be preferable to parents than adding to the school year. I think those are good suggestions we've heard from parents, and we intend to listen to them and act on them.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to talk to you about the situation in London. We've heard there in recent days about a critical situation to do with ICU beds, and now general surgery beds are also a huge problem.

Today there was a story about a 70-year-old who went to London from Thunder Bay for heart surgery and he's experiencing something that I believe people are going to call the Harris hospital boomerang. He is recovering from heart surgery in London and the people there would like him to go back to Thunder Bay, but there are no beds in Thunder Bay for him to go back to because they are squeezed between two Harris hospital cuts. You took $55 million out of the hospitals in London in the last two years. You're going to take more beds away.

My question is, what will you do to help this 70-year-old stranded in London find a bed?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I spoke with Mr Tony Dagnone, the administrator of the hospital, about two hours ago on the phone. He said there's no basis for this story. Again, the Minister of Health is not responsible. You are to direct your questions to the hospital. You would have found out that the family went to the media because -- the hospital's not sure why the family went to the media. The woman in the story says they are getting excellent care.

The solution to the problem, though, if there is a problem, is that there will be more beds in Thunder Bay. There are new transitional beds. I haven't got the note in front of me now, but what the story points out -- and I can only go by the story at this point -- with respect to the alternative levels of care beds, it's a new type of bed the commission is recommending in communities like Thunder Bay, and some in London and Toronto and right across the province, called transitional beds, which will take the pressure off the acute care beds.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There are no beds in Thunder Bay.

Hon Mr Wilson: "Bed blockers" is a term that came forward when the Liberals were in office in the 1980s. That was the problem. You did nothing about it, folks.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Fort William, you must withdraw that comment you made earlier.

Mrs McLeod: You mean about it not being true that there are beds in Thunder Bay, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Yes, that comment. You must withdraw it.

Mrs McLeod: I withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

1420

Mr Kennedy: There's a reason why this family had to go to the media, because there's no point, as you've just demonstrated, in going to the Minister of Health. When families are told that their loved ones have to leave hospitals and are told by those hospitals it's because of your cuts, because there are no beds available, they expect at least some response from you, Minister.

You've closed the chronic care hospital in Thunder Bay, you've put those beds into an acute care hospital. They don't have the space. They've got 60 people taking up those beds. Minister, is it your responsibility. You may say it isn't, but everybody in this House knows it's your job. It's your job to find this gentleman, 70 years old, a bed. It's your job to make sure there is something available for him.

Will you at least allow some funding to go back into Thunder Bay or into London so that this gentleman and others don't find themselves squeezed? Will you at least admit that the hospitals in London have been cancelling surgery, no ICU beds? They can't fit people in and now they can't even send people back. Will you at least admit there's a problem and that you will do something about it?

Hon Mr Wilson: Hospital restructuring is designed to correct exactly the situation the honourable member describes. There will be more of these transitional beds to get rid of the bed blockers that you did nothing about.

Second, the honourable member is completely misinformed about the role of the Minister of Health in this province and in this country. I can't micromanage the system. If there's a complaint, it must go to the hospital board, which is a group of citizens who have a responsibility for running that hospital. In this case and in every case, I would ask that you ask the hospital. Give these good people who have the responsibility for operating the hospital the opportunity to respond and solve the problems at the local level.

I cannot, no matter how hard you wish, direct one doctor to do one thing in this province. I cannot keep a patient in or discharge a patient. That is not under the law something the Minister of Health can do. Maybe you think you can, maybe you want to micromanage the system. I have faith in the doctors, I have faith in the nurses, I have faith in the administration that if --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Windsor-Sandwich and Ottawa West, come to order.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Throw him out.

The Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound, it would be helpful if you came to order as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will wait. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is getting a terrible reputation across the province of, first of all, not having --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: London is one of the best health care areas in Ontario. I would ask the honourable member to leave the chamber, go talk to the administration there and get his facts straight. Your own hospitals condemned you for not getting your facts straight. Now you've taken it upon yourself to upset the good people in London. The patient in question is getting good care. The patient was never in danger of being discharged without a plan in place.

I wish the honourable member would check his facts before he brings those cases. You brought a case to the Legislature earlier this week and you couldn't have been more wrong in that case. The fact of the matter is he does put me at a disadvantage. He takes advantage of the fact that the minister cannot talk about the details of a case. All I can do is ask you to please check your facts --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like you to rule on the word "bed blocker," whether that is a parliamentary word or not. I think he referred to patients as bed blockers. Is that a parliamentary word?

The Speaker: That's parliamentary. I would assume that's some technical term they use in the Ministry of Health. I don't know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Holy smokes, don't start heckling me. That's just my opinion. I assume that is a technical term.

HEALTH CARDS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Minister of Health. Yesterday you announced a series of measures that you're going to be taking to cut down on health care fraud. I think everyone in the province wants to be sure that our health dollars are used appropriately, that no one is taking advantage of the system.

My concern around your announcement was that you stated that as of January 1 the Ministry of Health will no longer allow health care providers to give the benefit of the doubt, and that only when people are clearly in an emergency situation would they get health care without a health card.

I wonder if you've really given much thought to this, because the fact is that the majority of people who present themselves in need of care without a health card prove in the course of things to be entitled to health care in Ontario.

There are many reasons why people don't have a health card. They may have had their ID stolen, including their health card, or when they want to apply for a health card they may not have access to their identification. They may be homeless and may not have belongings. They may be entitled, but for whatever reason don't have them.

Minister, can you tell us what you're going to do about these people?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The reports in the media were not meant to be taken exactly at face value in terms of --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: Common sense dictates that everyone in the province right now agrees with the honourable member and agrees with what I said yesterday, yes, but at the end of the day if you're ineligible. Yes, a lot of people don't have it on them. I don't have mine on me right now. But during my time in hospital, if that should happen, I would have the opportunity to present a valid card.

At the end of the day, though -- this isn't a change in law; this is just an enforcement of what the law has been right across this country under the Canada Health Act -- if you're not eligible, you're not eligible. You'll be swiping your Visa card and not your health card. But you'll be given ample opportunity to show that you are eligible for health benefits in Ontario.

Mrs Boyd: Then I'm not quite clear what the difference is. I guess my real concern is that's not exactly what's happening. Let me tell you the story of a 21-year-old woman who last spring presented herself at Doctors Hospital because she wasn't feeling well. She didn't have a health card, but she had lived in Ontario all her life. The hospital told her they'd treat her, but she needed to pay $25 down. She didn't have it, so she left.

The next day she was feeling worse. She went to the Toronto Western Hospital. She was told they would treat her, but she would be billed. She didn't have the money, so she left.

Two days later she was admitted as an emergency to the Wellesley Hospital because her fever was life-threatening. She occupied a bed there for four days. It turns out she had a urinary tract infection that could have been treated on the first day for very little cost, and it cost us all a great deal of money.

All I'm suggesting to you is that, first of all, we need to be setting up procedures that are consumer-friendly in terms of getting the health cards, and second of all, people aren't being turned away with minor conditions because they're being told they're going to be charged up front because they don't have a health card. How are we going to deal with these very expensive mistakes?

Hon Mr Wilson: The difference is, we're told -- and no government has the exact figure to what extent this is going on; we'll know better because of our new program -- many people apparently go through our system now and no one ever checks. They might mention the health card but they never follow up. They have to eventually have a valid health card. If there's any doubt at the point of service, they can ask for other ID. They can phone the Ministry of Health. There are a number of things that can be done. Again, emergency services must be covered, but they have to be true emergencies.

Yes, we are cracking down on fraud. We all know anecdotal stories of people coming from other countries and from other jurisdictions, where they haven't paid taxes here, they don't have eligibility here, and they're supposedly receiving health services. That's what we want cut down on, without, as the honourable member has pointed out, jeopardizing care and access for our own residents and those who are entitled to health benefits in Ontario.

1430

CROSS-BORDER TRAVEL / VOYAGES TRANSFRONTALIERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and it relates to the concern many people have raised in my riding regarding the proposed new immigration law that would require, under section 110 of this new law, that all Canadians and foreigners would have to register both coming from and going into the United States and fill out additional visa information documents.

Exiger un visa aux Canadiens et aux Canadiennes qui veulent entrer aux États-Unis est non seulement contre une longue tradition mais remet aussi en question tout notre travail concernant le libre-échange.

Minister, I have a lot of companies and workers who are very concerned about this whole thing --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very pleased to respond to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. It certainly is a big concern.

There's no doubt that if section 110 of the new US immigration law was enacted, there would be long lineups and confusion at the borders. Such gridlocks would be bad for Ontario, not only for transportation and business, but for tourism as well.

More than 76 million trips -- and I want to emphasize that -- were made by Canadians to the United States last year. Ontario exported $116 billion worth of merchandise to the US last year. Our trade development strategy has increased our merchandise exports 6% in the first six months of this year. Clearly our tourism initiatives also have helped, because we attracted over 26 million Americans to Ontario in 1996.

Gridlocks at border crossings would discourage tourists on both sides of the border. Enacting this law would certainly be counterproductive at a time when we are trying to dismantle barriers to free trade.

Mr Hastings: If this law gets implemented unchanged, how will you provide for preventing an unmitigated disaster, Minister?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Saunderson: This is no laughing matter. This is a very serious matter that we should be considering. I'm happy to say that I have written to Mr Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa, expressing my concerns about this matter and asking him to please keep us informed of the developments. I've also spoken to Mr Gregory Johnson, the US consul general in Toronto, outlining the ramifications of such a law. He responded by saying that he took the issue very seriously and would be conveying my message and our concern to Washington.

I want to conclude by saying that my staff are in touch with federal officials in Ottawa and also in Washington to make sure we get a speedy resolution of this problem so that Ontarians and Canadians will not be concerned and our trade will not be interrupted, nor will our tourism be damaged.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Since your government has taken office, you have proceeded to cut a total of $56 million out of Hamilton-area hospitals, both in capital and operating costs, in the past two years.

Minister, there is a crisis in hospital care in the city of Hamilton and surrounding areas. We have examples. One gentleman suffered a stroke and was left for hours in a wheelchair in an emergency room without a doctor to see him, without a stretcher being available. That's under your jurisdiction. We had a woman who has a rare condition that needs treatment. Because of her condition, it takes her husband four hours to get her ready to go to the hospital for treatment. In the past three months on four occasions she got there and there was not a bed available. She was sent home. We had a situation in the backyard of your minister of seniors where Joe Brant hospital had to convert a boardroom into an emergency waiting room.

You have created this crisis before your commission -- what are you going to do --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Again, the honourable member is encouraged to discuss those individual cases with the hospital and the public hospital board there. I'd be interested to know what their response is. I encourage the honourable member to do that.

Mr Agostino: I have discussed these cases with the families, with the doctors and with the hospitals. In every single case they have said it is because of the cuts you have made to the health care system in Hamilton that people are sitting in wheelchairs without a stretcher being available, that this woman cannot get a bed. Every single case has been blamed on you and the cuts of your government, and this is before your thugs on the restructuring commission create havoc in Hamilton next month.

It's been estimated that as a result of the cuts that are being made there, as a result of what is happening in the districts around Hamilton, there will be at least 4,500 more patients from outside the city who are going to need services in Hamilton next year. Your commission is going to come in in about a month and close at least one Hamilton hospital.

Minister, you have a crisis in Ottawa, you have a crisis in Windsor, you have a crisis in Thunder Bay. You are going to create a crisis. Can you tell me what proactive action you're going to take to guarantee to the people of Hamilton that you're going to avert this crisis that is going to occur once your restructuring commission comes to town and decides that it's going to close our hospitals?

Hon Mr Wilson: So far the restructuring commission has been very positive in increasing services in every area of the province. The law is very clear that it can't cut services. The honourable member is making the case of the need to restructure. Obviously the status quo isn't good enough in Hamilton.

I was just in Hamilton last week and I was at probably the hospitals you're talking about, at least one of them, and certainly had no indication of what the honourable member's talking about. However, I do have indication from all of your hospitals in Hamilton that they would like to see the commission come in, that they realize the status quo isn't an option, that they would like the cooperation of their local MPPs.

They do not need the word "crisis" thrown around as they try and improve the health care system and increase services for a growing and aging population, something that your party failed to do, that should have been done 10, 15 years ago. It's unfortunate that it's happening in a short period of time, but we will have a better system with more services to serve more patients.

TVONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and communications. On September 11 and 12, Wawatay radio and Wahsa distance education stopped broadcasting to protest your government's intentions to privatize TVOntario. They wanted to let their listeners in the far north know what it would be like after you privatize TVOntario and they no longer have a carrier to help them put out their broadcasting signal. You see, they use the TVO satellite to broadcast education and information programs to 35 first nation communities in the remote far north.

Minister, in your drive, in your rush to sell off TVOntario, can you tell us what plans you have to ensure that Wawatay and Wahsa distance education continue to broadcast?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I refer that question to the minister responsible for privatization.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): The leader of the third party is well aware of the fact that a very important part of our privatization review framework is to take a look at the different options and alternatives that are available to bring in the private sector to help us manage the businesses government is involved in in a different and more effective way. Part of the process, of course, is to involve the public in some consultation. We think Ontarians have a role to play in this process and we intend to listen to what they say and respond to initiatives such as the one he just spoke to.

1440

Mr Hampton: I asked a very specific question. These are two education and public information broadcasters that would go off the air. They are able to broadcast now because TVOntario includes them on TVOntario's satellite signal because they see it as part of TVOntario's mandate.

The reality is, if Wahsa distance education goes off the air, all kinds of people in those 35 remote first nation communities will not receive any educational programming in their own language. If Wawatay goes off the air, there will be no public information program in the Cree or Ojicree language.

I've asked a specific question and I still didn't get an answer. The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation doesn't know. Can the minister of privatization tell us? Have you any plans whatsoever to ensure that Wahsa distance education continues to broadcast and Wawatay radio continues to broadcast after you privatize TVO?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thought I did answer the member's question by saying that we believe all Ontarians have a role to play and some advice to provide as we assess the options and alternatives as they relate to TVO. Of course we'll listen to their concerns and their issues. That's why we have that very important part of our process, so that we can listen to what Ontarians say and have them help us assess the alternatives that are available to us to bring private sector to partner with government in providing a much better and more cost-effective service to Ontarians.

HOME CARE

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is directed to the minister responsible for seniors. You will be aware that I have a long-standing interest in and support of long-term care in the province of Ontario, particularly for Runnymede hospital. In light of some questions raised earlier today in the House and in response to last night on the CBC national newscast, home care was described as the future of health care in Canada. The reporter interviewed several patients who appreciated the opportunity to receive care outside of hospitals and nursing homes.

Governments across Canada are recognizing the value of home care. I would ask the minister if home care is a priority for the government and whether that priority is being backed up with the necessary funding.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I think members of this House would be pleased to know that Ontario is spending over $1.2 billion on home care, community-based supports, and a further over $1.2 billion on institutional-based care extended outside of a hospital setting for the frail elderly and the disabled in this province. We are spending record numbers of dollars to provide decent home care in this province and we have expanded it significantly in many parts of the province. It also forms part of a $170-million community-based funding increase this government has invested.

I have visited Runnymede with the honourable member. We have looked at the program and its impact, making sure that sufficient home care services are available, and I'm pleased to report that in the member's constituency area, funding for home care in Metro Toronto stands at $130 million today, and that's a $75 million dollars increase since --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Shea: My supplementary is also for the minister responsible for seniors. The National report addressed the related questions of how individuals can find out about home care available to them and fears that it might not be available. In spite of federal government cuts to our nation's health care system, can he assure the House that Ontario residents can get the services they need?

Hon Mr Jackson: We have increased substantively the amount of dollars to recognize growth. These are dollars that are being directly applied to the assessed needs in communities all across the province. There are some areas that are overserviced and moneys are going directly to communities. The member for St Catharines has had his community traditionally underserviced in this province. We've flowed additional dollars there. There are one or two communities that are overserviced and they're not getting additional dollars. They are expected to deliver the service fairly, equitably and efficiently as well.

I want to remind all members that in an Ontario where for 12 years not one new nursing home or long-term-care bed was approved by either the Liberal or NDP government, the system has problems we are addressing immediately by flowing these home care dollars into community settings to provide compassionate care and appropriate care. There are no waiting lists. There is demand, but there are no waiting lists within this province for home care at this time.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is for the Minister of Health, who has disappeared momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question. He'll probably --

Interjection: Here he is.

The Speaker: Okay, go ahead.

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister of Health. It has been over a year and a half since you announced that you had chosen a provider for dialysis treatment in Cornwall, but you soon withdrew the deal when you got caught up in a legal battle. Now, 18 months later, you've dropped your appeal, so the court proceedings are over and so is the 30-day waiting period that you said you required, but you've failed to give a progress report.

At this point, Cornwall and area residents are uncertain if and when they might receive dialysis treatment. Hospital officials are asking what you are doing and if you are accepting proposals from all parties for space. I ask you for a full disclosure today on the Cornwall dialysis. Are there any outstanding issues? How many proposals are being considered? When do you think things will happen? And where do we go from here?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): If the honourable member would read the court's decision, he would know exactly what we're doing. It's a public document and he is welcome to read it. We are following the court's decision, which was to negotiate with Dr Posen. Dr Posen has made an arrangement to get rid of that American company that was so discredited by your party, which stopped the process. You've never explained that honestly to your constituents.

It was the member for Renfrew North and the member for Fort William --

The Speaker: I think that was unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw it.

Hon Mr Wilson: Speaker, I withdraw.

The way this went, a proper tender went out, a particular party won that tender, questions were raised in this House calling into question that tender and that put us into the court action. That's what happened. I haven't been free to this point to say because it has been tied up in court for over a year. So read your Hansard. That's the history.

Having said that, we're moving very positively in the future to do what the court directed, to negotiate with Dr Posen. Hopefully all that will get sorted out and new services will be up and running in Ottawa and Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: Minister, I can remember how frustrated you were when you were in opposition and you didn't have dialysis in your riding.

There have been 18 months of dithering around. After your announcement last spring, these people hoped they would be relieved of another winter's driving to Ottawa and Kingston. Please cut out the rhetoric today and tell the people of eastern Ontario that they won't have to drive again through these weather conditions. Instead, provide some comfort to these people by revealing today that the Cornwall dialysis facility will be treating patients this coming winter.

Hon Mr Wilson: That's certainly the intention. We were able to do that right across the province, with the exception of eastern Ontario because of the court case. Now that that has cleared, that is exactly what we're going to do. We have some 20 clinics up and running; they are already up and running. The proof is that the government's policy, my personal quest over the last seven years, I agree with the honourable member, has been very much fulfilled across the province.

Because of legal reasons we were unable to move in eastern Ontario until now, but I can assure the honourable member we're moving just as quickly as we possibly can, and we certainly are very much aware of the winter and the driving conditions your constituents would face, the same conditions my constituents faced, as you mentioned, and we will get you those services just as fast as we can.

1450

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Attorney General. I want to return to the issue of the drivers' licence suspension project that we raised yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I need to hear these questions. I appreciate there are a lot of important meetings taking place as we speak, but I wish you'd come to order.

Ms Martel: Minister, on May 9 you said, "The testing of the suspension of drivers' licences will begin immediately to ensure a smooth and full implementation in September of 1997." Further in the press release you went on to say, "Other enforcement measures will be implemented later this year, including suspensions of drivers' licences, which is currently being tested." That was May 9.

Our information is quite different. Will you confirm in the House today that in fact you have not begun the drivers' licence suspension project at all and that when you do begin testing, you will only start with 100 drivers who are in default? Can you confirm that in the House today?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's certainly our intention to begin the process of the enforcement measures to which the member refers. We've indicated we would do it in September, and it's going to happen in September.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's directed to the minister responsible for privatization, and it's in opposition to privatizing TVOntario. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any plans to privatize TVOntario and strongly support TVO's proposal to convert the agency to a not-for-profit corporation. We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to ensure continued access by Wahsa and Wawatay radio to TVO's distribution system. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize the excellent educational and information programming provided by TVOntario. The sale of TVO to commercial interests would also jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming, and Wahsa's distance education services, because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition that was brought to my attention by a constituent. I would like to read it, as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature,

"(a) to pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care; and

"(b) to pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

Like hundreds of my fellow Windsorites I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the call for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

We're not backing away from this demand for one minute.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition from a small number of the residents of my riding of Peterborough expressing their concern with the change of services between the province and at the municipal level.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in Cornwall; and

"Whereas the lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa and Kingston, sometimes several times each week, even during dangerous winter weather conditions, to receive the basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress and cost; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas this promise made by the Minister of Health has, to date, not been kept, resulting in local patients and their families travelling to Ottawa and Kingston for treatment several times a week;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Health follows through on his commitment made last April to set up a long-awaited dialysis and much-needed health service in the Cornwall area."

That's signed by residents from the Cornwall area.

PAY EQUITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding pay equity in Bill 136:

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

"Whereas Bill 136 strips entitlements to employee status and therefore pay equity rights for home child care providers; and

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

"Whereas home child care providers are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and its implications for the Pay Equity Act."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition that's signed by 54 constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children and for public safety in general."

I sign this so it becomes a record of the assembly.

1500

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This is a petition on secondary school reform in Ontario.

"Dear Minister:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is in the relationship between students and teachers and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As the Minister of Education and Training, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary school reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We recognize and support the need to review secondary education in Ontario. The proposal for reform as put forward by your ministry, however, is substantially flawed in several key areas: (a) reduced instruction time, (b) reduction in instruction in English, (c) reduction of qualified teaching personnel, (d) academic work experience credit not linked to educational curriculum, (e) devaluation of formal education.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition regarding the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper, Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by eight Ontario residents relating to the recent Ontario court decision relating to toplessness in public. It expresses disapproval of that decision and it makes recommendations as to municipal bylaws and federal legislation to address the matter.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND

LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here that was submitted to me by Ted Loughead, the staff representative of OPSEU, Region 4, in Kingston and it deals with Bill 136. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas Bill 136, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, will not meet its stated objective to facilitate collective bargaining in the event of mergers and amalgamations; and

"Further, if enacted, Bill 136 will interfere with collective bargaining, impose a new bureaucratic and dictatorial regime, remove the right to fair and impartial arbitration of disputes and the right to strike; and

"Whereas the Ontario Labour Relations Board has a long and successful history of mediating labour disputes;

"Therefore, in the interest of maintaining and enhancing quality public services provide by dedicated public employees, we hereby petition the Ontario government to withdraw its proposed Bill 136 legislation and support a fair and workable system that will not disrupt the supply of public services to the community or the livelihoods of thousands of Ontarians."

It's signed by approximately 40 individuals and I have signed my name to it as well, as I am in complete agreement with same.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from a number of people from the community of Timmins. It reads as follows:

"Please help us send a message to our government by signing our petition to stop the cuts to nursing staff in nursing homes. Hopefully this petition will make a better life for the sick people and the elderly people of our community.

"Sick people are not asking to be sick. People at nursing homes are in need of special care.

"There are many disadvantages with the cuts in nursing staff that are to be made in the future. Disabled people will end up suffering more because they will not be getting the care they should have. Lack of proper care could lead to depression in some patients.

"At this moment, nurses have difficulty to keep up with their duties because there are so many sick patients in nursing homes. With the proposed cuts, the nurses left working will get exhausted from rushing too much, which could lead to accidents. Furthermore, nurses will end up being on sick leave because of stress and pressure because of the lack of other nurses. Just think of how these cuts would affect your family in special need of care."

This is by one of the residents in the nursing home and it was signed by a number of family members, totalling around 500 people. I affix my signature to that petition.

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supply in 1995; and

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly supported the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well water supplies for Milton's water delivery system."

I'm in agreement with this and I will affix my signature to it, there being over 3,000 signatures now on these petitions.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has instead introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the number of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration in quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

I've added my name to that petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Family Law Act to provide for child support guidelines and to promote uniformity between orders for the support of children under the Divorce Act (Canada) and orders for the support of children under the Family Law Act / Projet de loi 128, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le droit de la famille pour prévoir des lignes directrices sur les aliments pour les enfants et pour promouvoir l'harmonisation entre les ordonnances alimentaires au profit des enfants rendues en vertu de la Loi sur le divorce (Canada) et celles rendues en vertu de la Loi sur le droit de la famille.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I believe you had the floor.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We are continuing debate on Bill 128. I had the opportunity last time they had called this bill to be speaking to it and ended the day, so I am pleased to finish with the last nine minutes of it.

Bill 128 has to do with custody and support. Our greatest difficulty with the government coming forward with a bill of this nature is that the government goes forward with making changes without understanding the very nature of what it has done to family support in Ontario so far.

We know in the Windsor area that they closed a regional office. Before they closed the regional office, we petitioned the Attorney General, who actually went to law school in Windsor, who knows the system in Windsor very well. We said to the minister, "Minister, the Windsor regional office is one of your most fruitful regional offices for family support. It makes the government money in the amount it costs to run the office versus the kind of support it's able to garner from parents who are paying support. It makes some $25 million a year, far in excess of other regional offices just by virtue of the kind of industry we have in the Windsor area."

They closed the regional office anyway and instead went forward with some kind of new-fangled system, never tested, never tried, which was a complete and utter disaster.

Now you want to come forward with Bill 128 and say, "We think we've got something that's going to help the system." Friends, this government couldn't handle the original system, couldn't make a simple change to mechanics without creating much concern and strife for many families across Ontario, let alone just those in Windsor and Essex county.

The difficulty of coming here today to say, "Yes, you may make changes in the law somewhere," without understanding that this very government cannot be trusted to implement change -- this government wants to be proud of bringing change to Ontarians. When you come from Windsor and Essex county, you see the kind of bulldozer, steamroller approach this government takes to change.

We have a hospital system in complete disarray because of that same mentality that you bring to bear in every ministry this government operates. The Minister of Health stands on his feet today and says: "I'm not responsible. I'm not in charge. I can't tell them all what to do." People of Ontario need to understand the Ontario government funds, and because they fund they also make people obliged to acts --

Interjection.

1510

Mrs Pupatello: -- like the hospital act. This member from Sarnia wants to yell out.

Let's talk to the people from Lambton. They saw exactly what happened after a steamroller, bulldozer approach in Lambton. In fact, all the galleries here were full of people from this member's riding because they knew his government was not listening. They were not listening to the very people who saw change coming to Lambton, that the hospitals were going to be closed with no input, that they weren't going to be told where their services were going to come from.

Yesterday, my office in Windsor received frantic phone calls from the emergency services in Windsor. They called our office to say: "We need help. Somebody has to help us. We have a furious doctor running the emergency there, saying, `I can't go into the waiting room to bring a patient into emergency to treat because I have nowhere to put the patient.'" These people are angry because those who are already in emergency don't have a bed to be sent to in the hospital because the hospital beds are all full of people who have to move into long-term-care beds which aren't there.

You think you are making change. I'm telling you that you're destroying any kind of confidence we could have in your hospital system, and believe me, you are going to own this one.

Today in the House the minister referred to these as "bed blockers." When you come from Windsor, these patients are not bed blockers. He may refer to them in that abstract manner because it's easier for him to deal with things that aren't real. Well, what we hear about are things that are real. These are patients who are being sent home, and in the end the patients --

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I've been sitting here listening and I have Bill 128 in my hand. I don't see anything about beds, I don't see anything about hospitals and I don't see anything about that.

The Acting Speaker: I get your point of order. Thank you. Take your seat. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, he does have a point. You must speak, under the rules, to Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: When we talk about Bill 128, we are talking about the kind of change this government wants to bring to bear to Ontarians. What you need to do before you change the law is make sure you have systems in place to deal with the law. This Attorney General should have lost his job months ago with the fiasco he created with family support, where people are losing their homes because they couldn't pay their mortgages because you decided to change the system. You decided to close regional offices but you didn't have a system in place.

Your government uses the same pattern in every ministry, and that is exactly the relationship of the Windsor hospital situation and this Bill 128. You forced the closure of emergency care out of Windsor Western on the west side of town with no expansion done at the other two sites.

Yesterday three ambulances waited at emergency at Hotel-Dieu Grace for an hour. They couldn't leave the hospital because a patient was still on a stretcher in the emergency with no bed to move the patient on to. That is the same pattern that is brought to bear with Bill 128 --

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Again, I believe the member for Windsor-Sandwich is wandering. She's not talking to the point. The bill is before us.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, please try and stay on Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. You'll understand that the pattern being set -- when you make changes in one place you need to ensure that the environment is ready to make changes. Therefore, you don't close the regional office of family support before your computer system is working, so that you've tested it and tried it. Similarly, you do not close an emergency ward before the other two sites are expanded with sufficient beds, with enough bays for ambulances to pull into. That is exactly the connection. This pattern is the same.

You insist on making changes before you've prepared any groundwork out there -- a steamroller, bulldozer approach to your government. What do we get instead? We get this kind of affiliation for patients: He wants to call them "bed blockers." These patients from Windsor are not bed blockers. The people that are sent home from emergency, only to die at home, are not bed blockers. These are people who pay taxes. The people with family support who can't pay their mortgage payment, what are they? Are they government blockers somehow? These are individuals who get family support and they should be able to pay a mortgage payment with money that is truly theirs. Instead, you close the regional office, there is no system in place for these people, and Bill 128 somehow is going to cure that.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I'm just happy to remind you, and perhaps through you the member for Windsor-Sandwich, that we are still on Bill 128.

Mrs Pupatello: When we arrive and when we have an issue that you cannot turn around and say does not exist, you'll continue to interrupt me because you don't want my point to get out there. That's what is happening in this House today. It's going to take an awful lot of that to try to stop me in this House, let me tell you.

We have an emergency report called for by the Minister of Health himself. It itemizes clearly that conditions are unsafe, undignified, that appropriate care is not being delivered in Windsor area hospitals. It is his report that he called for, that he must own up to, but today he chooses to stand and say: "I'm not responsible. It's not me. I haven't got anything I can do about that." If that's the case, give up the limo, give up the cheque, go back to being a backbencher and put somebody in charge who can bloody well do this job, because he's dealing with families, and when you come from Windsor it makes a difference.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I am pleased to be able to respond to the speech made by the member from Windsor. I think she was quite good at demonstrating the links that exist between this bill and the context of everything else that this government is doing. I think it was a superb job of demonstrating that you cannot look at this particular bill, Bill 128, without the context of looking at what the government's doing when it comes to children with hospitals; when it comes to what the government is doing around the family support plan; when it comes to what the government has done with welfare cuts; when it comes to what the government has done with the cuts to day care; when it comes to what the government has done when it comes to social housing; when it comes to the all-out attack that this government has made on working families and the children of this province over the last two and a half years.

As I say, I think the member for Windsor-Sandwich showed that there are links between Bill 128 and what this government is doing. I think she did a good job of showing those links. On the other issue that she spoke to, in regard to the family support plan, again the government gets nervous. They all stood up and said, "Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The member is talking about FSP and is not talking about Bill 128." The members of the government are nervous. They don't like it when members of the opposition, or even be it the public through the committee process, come to them and hold them to task on their decisions.

The reality is that you guys have messed up big time. The family support plan has never been in the disastrous state that it is in now, since Charles Harnick, the now Attorney General of the province of Ontario, has come to power and has made it a mess. He shut down the regional offices. They took all the files, they put them in boxes, then they shipped them off to Downsview, and nobody knew where they were. Meanwhile, support order changes and all kinds of things that needed to be dealt with weren't, and people who used to pay and never had a problem getting money to their spouses were being all messed up. Who's getting hurt? Again, it's the kids.

I congratulate the member. I think she demonstrated that this government, when it comes to children, has no record to be proud of.

Mr Parker: I listened with great interest to the comments opposite. Frankly, I thought I'd made an error in reading the order paper and I'd stumbled in on the wrong debate, because the subject we were here to discuss is Bill 128, which is a child support bill. What that has to do with the tale we were being told about hospitals in Windsor is beyond me.

If we had been hearing a discussion about child support, we might have heard about the disaster that was left to this government by the previous government, with the boxes upon boxes with the dust already thick on those boxes of child support claims that were sitting in those regional offices throughout the province receiving no attention whatsoever. We would have been hearing about the countless phone calls that went totally unanswered, let alone answered and not responded to, by the previous government, and the mess, the Augean stables that this government has had to clean out in dealing with the mess that was left behind by the so-called family assistance plan left by the previous government, and what we are trying to do now to try to get out from under that.

There will be reason to cheer in the weeks ahead as the backlog left to us by the previous government is dealt with and we can get on with dealing with cases as they are currently being brought forward. Phone calls are being answered. Phone calls are being returned. Action is taking place, not something that's totally unknown in this province -- it was unknown until this government took office. It's taking a while to get through the backlog that we were left with, yes, that's true, but we're just about through the backlog and we're on top of the current cases.

If the member for Windsor-Sandwich had been discussing Bill 128, we might have heard a little bit about the child support guidelines that are brought forward in Bill 128. We might have heard something about how Bill 128 will ensure the public has adequate information to make decisions on how best to proceed with their child support claims.

1520

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was delighted to see the member tie in this bill with the entire government program, because that's what you have to do. You can't speak only about the bill in isolation. She was worried. She thought the government had sounded the bugles of retreat. The government appears to be in full panic the last couple of weeks. They're going from crisis to crisis, many of which they created themselves, and that's what she pointed out.

I was as astounded as she -- she mentioned this in her speech -- when the Minister of Health today referred to patients in hospital beds as bed blockers. I can't believe that. That demonstrates the bureaucratic, unfeeling approach that the government is taking to health care. The member wanted to mention that, and I don't blame her for mentioning that.

As well, she would recall that the Premier said a while ago that nurses were like hula hoops. He compared them to hula hoops. He said, "Hula hoops went out of style; people had to do something different," and he said that's what nurses would have to do. I know the nurses haven't forgiven the government for that, and I think the patients, when they hear that they are referred to as bed blockers, are going to be equally concerned. I'm glad the member mentioned that.

Several times government members, who are feeling very edgy today -- they see the government diving in the polls, they see the government doing very poorly in by-elections, so they're starting to worry. They're running for cover now. So every time somebody mentions something that appears to be a little bit off topic when there's a bill before the House, the government members are up protesting. I am responding, of course, to what the member has had to say. I worry about that, because I know, for instance, that the government members tend to --

Mr Martiniuk: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: It had better be good.

Mr Martiniuk: Yes, it is good, Madam Speaker. Again, the Liberal Party seems to be wandering all over the place. The member for St Catharines knows the rules of this House, and he is ignoring them. The point --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Member, take your seat. I get your point.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want order, please. The members are giving their two-minute responses to the previous speaker, and they are allowed to say what they choose to say in response to that speech. Go ahead.

Mr Bradley: The member for Cambridge, the government member, has made my point just now. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments?

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's quite obvious that there is a lot of nervousness in this Legislature among the Conservative backbenchers as they go home for the weekend and hear all the commotion that is going on, and people are unhappy. They attack the comments that the member for Windsor-Sandwich is making on Bill 128. If you are going to have a discussion in this Legislature on Bill 128, surely you have to bring in all the mistakes that the Minister of Education has made as he has been trying to restructure the education system. One week he is saying one thing and another week he is saying another thing.

The Minister of Health is talking about patients who are in beds being bed blockers. You talk about a slap in the face -- somebody is going in for surgery and spends time in hospital, and then you get the Minister of Health making comments of this kind.

The Minister of Education is saying, "I didn't mean that the students were going to have to go back one week earlier, a week before Labour Day; I meant that the teachers are going to have to go back one week before Labour Day." They've been doing that for the last 30 years. The Minister of Education doesn't even understand that the teachers have been going back one week or two weeks earlier, before September, to prepare their classes for the new year. All of a sudden the Minister of Education is saying: "There is some confusion out there. What I meant to say was it's an attack on teachers, it's not on students," and he doesn't understand the whole system. I understand it, as a lot of people from northern Ontario do.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich has explained fully that this government has no caring about women and children. The first thing they did when they came into government was to cut 21% or 22% of the money that they need for food, lodging and to pay the hydroelectricity. The most vulnerable people in society were given a slap on the face by this government, and they are continuing to do it over the last two and a half years. It's just one slap after another. I congratulate the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, you can sum up.

Mrs Pupatello: One of these days, the MPPs from all over Ontario are going to understand what has happened to the health care system in Windsor, because it's coming to a community near you. The pace of change and the pattern is so completely backwards. Just like it is with family support, so it is with health care, and you will understand when it's in your backyard and when it's your constituents who are being affected like mine are. So every one of you who wants to heckle and interrupt is going to learn sooner rather than later that your health minister wants not to be responsible, but he is, and you have a responsibility as a provincial government to provide the right level of funding for quality care in this province.

Because our community was ahead of the game, we have spent millions of dollars never to be reimbursed by that ministry. Your Premier doesn't have the gall or the nerve to come into my community, other than at the airport and barely stepping off the curb during an election campaign, to even come and see for himself what kind of situation we have in Windsor.

Any one of you who wants to question the credibility of the issues, I invite you personally to come to my riding. I will personally give you a tour. I will introduce you to Conservatives who are helping me with this fight, because this is not about what party you belong to; this is about what kind of health care we get.

Some of your members already know this, because several of your members voted in favour of my private member's bill to completely abolish the health commission that is causing the destruction at the behest of the Premier of Ontario. You cannot get away with this kind of thing without hurting people. This will come home to roost -- it will take us time to get this message out -- because eventually this is coming to your own backyard. Unfortunately, Windsor was first. We are the canary in the coal mine here. Everything that you are doing today is not allowing us to go forward with good, positive health care in the Windsor community, and you will learn this.

The Acting Speaker: Before we continue with debate, I want to say two things to the members. Number one, I want to remind the members that you are supposed to, under the rules, stick to generally -- you all know we're fairly lenient here -- the contents of the bill, which is Bill 128 today. Number two, I want to say to members that you have the right at any time to stand up on a point of order, and I appreciate that, but I would also appreciate that the members show respect for each other and not stand up on two-minute rebuttals unless you're absolutely clear. Use your common sense, if I may say so, and make sure --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Seriously, show some respect for each other, because when you interrupt somebody in a two-minute rebuttal, you realize that they lose most of their time. Of course I will take your point of order, but I would ask all members to please think carefully and make sure that your point of order is legitimate and fair. Thank you. Further debate?

1530

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It gives me pleasure to be able to join in this debate on Bill 128 that is dealing with family support. I'll try and keep on the important highlights of family support, because this is an issue that I heard about during the campaign leading up to September 4, but I can tell members in the House that I heard about a lot of other concerns from voters in Windsor-Riverside as well. Many people were saying that this government was moving too far, too fast, and they were concerned --

Interjection: And in the wrong direction.

Mr Lessard: And in the wrong direction as well. They were concerned because they were seeing a crisis in emergency care in the hospitals in our community. They saw the prospect of closing parts of hospitals in the community without changes being made to adequately address those closures. They were seeing a health care system in crisis in the Windsor area and they had a great deal of concern about that. The member for Windsor-Sandwich touched on that during her remarks as well. It's really difficult to try and speak just about family support as an issue I heard during the campaign without really considering everything about this government's agenda over the last two years. All these things fit together.

As this government was moving ahead with its agenda, something else I heard during the campaign that people were concerned about was the fact that the health care cuts were affecting our community, cuts to education were affecting our community and cuts to environmental protection were affecting our community. We had a very effective regional office in Windsor that was protecting the environment, that was out investigating spills, that was making sure our drinking water was safe to drink. That's an office that has been cut in half over the last year and a half as far as staff are concerned, since this government got elected in 1995. That was something that people were concerned about as well and told me about during the election.

Family support did come up, because there were many people in my riding who were concerned about the closure of the regional family support office in Windsor and the impact that was having, especially on women and children who were unable to get the support they needed to survive. We're talking mostly about support that was due to children to provide clothing, to provide housing and to provide food. They were having problems getting the support payments that were being made to the family support plan by their spouses. Those payments weren't getting to the people who needed that money to survive.

In this government's expediency in moving too far, too fast and in the wrong direction, in closing hospitals, in cutting health care, in cutting protection to the environment and downloading responsibilities on to municipalities, there are certain things this government overlooked. I know some of the members opposite are going to say: "You're complaining about the government moving too far, too fast. Here's a bill we should be moving faster on." Everybody agrees this is a bill that should have been passed last May actually, or even before, because this bill deals with uniformity of support orders between federal and provincial legislation.

Before coming to this place on September 4, I was a lawyer in private practice -- not a family law lawyer, but I had occasion to deal with family law cases. I know these federal support guidelines were introduced well over a year ago. The proposals for the legislation for the federal support guidelines were suggested well over a year ago. They've been subject to debate in the House of Commons, they've been subject to debate among lawyers and people in the legal profession. They make a lot of sense.

They take out a lot of the arguing and the bickering between spouses that say, "I should be receiving a certain level of support for a whole number of different issues." The federal guidelines say that if your income is a certain amount and this is the number of children you have, then this is the amount of support you should pay. That's something that makes sense.

Frankly, I think most people would fail to understand why it has taken this government so long to bring in and implement legislation that falls along the side of the federal guidelines, given the amount of time they've taken to put those federal guidelines into place. This is legislation that mirrors those federal guidelines.

For many people the distinction is very difficult to understand, but just to give some explanation to people who may be watching this, when it comes to couples who are legally married, in order to end that relationship they have to get a divorce. Divorces are done through courts and through the federal legislation. That, of course, is the process under which a judge will set the amount of support, if any, that is going to be paid by one spouse to the other or children.

There's also a great number of people who don't fall within the jurisdiction of the federal divorce legislation because they haven't been legally married. They may be living in common-law relationships; they may be living in relationships where they have children but they haven't gotten married. Those people who break up obviously have an obligation to support their children and this legislation recognizes that. I think it's important that it does acknowledge that every parent of a child continues to have an obligation to support that child. It's important that we remind people of the obligation they have.

How is that obligation enforced if it's not an action that takes place in divorce court but actually takes place in provincial court? That's something we need to look at. In Windsor we had a regional office that was providing for the effective enforcement of support orders that had been made in provincial court. We've seen that office closed since this government was elected in 1995, and people who never had any problem getting their support after 1990 started to have all kinds of problems after 1995, when that office was closed.

I brought up a case just the other day during question period that wasn't really just a problem with enforcement. There are a great number of other problems that we're having. We've heard from a number of people who have said: "I spoke to my spouse. They said that they paid the money to the family support plan. They paid it on time, but we don't have the money. It never got to us. We don't have any money for groceries or to pay the rent. What are we supposed to do?" Of course, they can't pay them directly. They have to pay through the family support plan. They're in a lot of trouble, a lot of difficulty, if they don't get that money after it's been paid by the payor. You really have to wonder what's happening with all that money.

The case I brought up the other day, of Sharon Stockford, was a case where she wasn't having a problem getting the money that was owed to her; the problem was that her circumstances changed. She had a child who had moved out of the house and therefore wasn't really entitled to the level of support that she has actually been getting. What she wanted to do was simply to get in touch with somebody from this government and say: "This support order needs to be changed. You're collecting too much money and you're giving me too much money, and it needs to be changed." She wasn't able to get in touch with anybody. She's tried to call the 800 number; there's no answer. She's tried to write a letter; there's no response. She sends faxes; there's no response. It's a simple thing to get that order changed, you would think. All she had to do was find somebody in this government who was going to be able to listen to her and make some change, and she wasn't able to do that.

She called our office and we tried to do the same thing. We try to call the 800 number. We don't get any response either.

In August -- this was before the election, but I can tell you that we were working on many of these cases during the election as well. We had people who were working on the election campaign doing case work. For a while, there was an 800 number and there was a person you could actually speak to at the other end. But now when you call that number, it just goes right to voice mail. There's nobody there to answer the phone any more. You leave a message on voice mail; there's never any response.

This is just another example of the incompetence of this government and the Attorney General as well. That's something we need to take into consideration when we're talking about passing this legislation to unify --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Come on, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Lessard: -- orders for support under the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act as well.

The Attorney General had the gall to say to me in response to my question that he had called my constituency office and the phones were disconnected or something like that. It's not my phones that are disconnected, it's the Attorney General's phones that are disconnected. There's nobody there to answer the Attorney General's phones. There's nobody there at the family support plan to answer the phones. We haven't had any problem with our telephones, Madam Speaker. I just want to assure you of that because that's something that does come within the jurisdiction of the Speaker's office. I can assure you that we haven't got any problem with our telephones. Anybody who calls our office gets someone to answer the phone and gets a response to their questions, and that's the way it should be.

1540

Mr Bisson: Except at the family support plan office.

Mr Lessard: At the family support plan they don't get that kind of service, and everybody who's called there knows that.

One of the things that does concern me about this legislation, Bill 128, is the fact that everybody thinks it's already passed. There have been advertising campaigns with respect to the federal guidelines, and anybody who's got a support order that's been made or who's been through provincial court already thinks that this is the law here in Ontario. They don't realize that this government hasn't gotten around to passing laws that affect provincial court orders up until this time and they're going to start making applications to the courts for variations of these existing orders.

What's going to happen when thousands of people make application at the same time for variations of their support orders? It really makes me wonder what impact that's going to have on our legal system, a legal system that is currently suffering under a burden of not enough people working in the courthouse, not enough courtrooms.

There are difficulties in the registrar's office in the courthouse in Windsor, I can tell you. If people want to make an application to vary their support order, they have to go and take one of those tickets off the doorway, like you get at the meat or the deli counter that tells you what number it is that you have to make your application at, and there are often times when you're going to spend at least two or three hours waiting in that line to file your application to get a variation to your support order.

What we really need is some streamlining of the system so that every time a person's financial circumstances change, for example, if a person who is paying support loses their job -- and we know that if you're working in the government of Ontario there's a higher prospect that you're going to be losing your job since this government got elected in 1995. But if you lose your job and your income changes and you therefore want to get your support order varied, there isn't a simple system to enable you to do that. It's unfortunate that isn't something that is provided for in this legislation.

Something else that isn't provided for in this legislation is indexing if inflation goes up, for example. There isn't any automatic provision in this legislation to increase those support orders. That's another case where if inflation rises rapidly again, which I hope we don't see, people will then also be faced with the prospect of having to make an application for variation and to go through the court system.

You know that oftentimes people who are applying for variations because they've lost their jobs don't have the income to pay for a lawyer. They don't have the financial means to do that. The first thing that people do is go down to the legal aid office and say: "I lost my job. I can't continue to pay the support that I owe. Can I get a certificate to provide me with a legal aid lawyer?" They're told they can't. There have been so many cuts to the legal aid plan since this government got elected that those who really need legal aid aren't going to be able to get a lawyer to make these applications they're entitled to.

What are they going to do? They're going to have to try and represent themselves. We're seeing a great number of people who are being forced through necessity to represent themselves in provincial court. Judges are going to have to take a lot more time to deal with people who are unrepresented in court. That's going to lead to huge backlogs, I suspect, in our court system.

But really what I heard most when I was out campaigning was from people who were concerned about enforcement mechanisms, people who say they've got their orders for support already but they're not getting that support. There were supposed to be some mechanisms that this government has promised on numerous occasions to bring in, like suspension of drivers' licences. I heard yesterday that this program has really been taking a long time to get in place and it isn't uniform across the province as far as the suspension of drivers' licences is concerned. We're really not sure when that's going to come into place.

I just bring that up as another example of some of the bungling that is attributed to the current Attorney General and the difficulty he's having not only with the family support plan but the legal aid plan and a number of other problems that are taking place in the Attorney General's office.

Really, the difficulties are with respect to enforcement. I'm having a number of people call my office now. These are parents who are calling. They're not getting the support and they're struggling to feed and house their families. This is something that should be a very simple process: A judge issues a court order; the Family Responsibility Office gets that order; they give it to the employer; the employer starts to make the payments; the employer forwards those payments to the Family Responsibility Office; they deposit the money or they send the payments out to the recipient.

But that isn't what's happening. What's happening now is just a complete mess. Families aren't getting the money, and payors don't have the money. It's been deducted from their salary already and the employer has sent the money to the Family Responsibility Office. Where does that money go? That's the problem we're faced with right now. Either it sits in a bag of mail or it's deposited into the wrong account -- however, I really doubt that; I've rarely heard of people getting too much money in their accounts. Or has the Attorney General's cuts to the program completely crippled this plan?

Families are going without these payments. They call out of desperation. That's the reason they're calling our offices. I know they're not just calling my office; they're calling the government members' offices as well. This money has been allocated to them for the basic necessities of life: food, shelter and clothing. That's what's being denied to them because of the bungling of this government.

In my riding of Windsor-Riverside we have employers who have very large payrolls: Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Hiram Walker. They have automated payrolls. The money comes out automatically and goes to the family support plan. But where does that money go? It's not going to the recipients. That's what they're calling and telling us about. The standard line from the Attorney General is that it must be somebody else's fault. "It's the payor's fault. They're not getting the money to us in time. The cheque's getting lost in the mail." It's always someone else's fault. But I want to say to the Attorney General that we know it's not somebody else's fault. We've heard this over and over again. This is the responsibility of the Attorney General and he needs to face up to that responsibility and take the actions necessary to clean up this mess.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's a pleasure to stand up and make some comments on the speech given by the member for Windsor-Riverside and to officially welcome him to the House. I've done it personally but this is the first chance I've had to do it publicly. It's nice to have him back again. It's obvious, though, that he's been here before, because he has the knack already in a very short period of time of standing up and talking about everything except the subject at hand. He made very small reference to Bill 128. He talked about education, health, legal aid, pretty well everything, but he did make some small reference to Bill 128.

He did talk about what we really need is more streamlining. Exactly right; what we really need is more streamlining. That's what Bill 128 is all about. I'm glad to see that he acknowledged that. He has picked up on some of the lingo. Some of the jargon has become very popular in this place, because at the very beginning of his speech he talked about "too far, too fast."

Mr Bisson: Heading in the wrong direction.

Mr Carroll: That's right. He also mentioned "in the wrong direction." Coming from southwestern Ontario, he's very familiar with directions. But he did talk about "too far, too fast," and it's interesting.

The other day we passed a bill on behalf of the member for Sudbury in an afternoon, because we all agreed it was something we needed to do. Now we have a piece of legislation here that we all agree is something we need to do. We introduced it in June and here we are, almost into the month of October, and the opposition still has not let us proceed with this bill. I don't understand how they can say we're going too far, too fast, and then at the same time slow us down from implementing a piece of legislation that they agree is in the best interests of young people and children in our province who are the victims of marriage breakup.

Just as final comment, it is nice to see the member for Windsor-Riverside here with us and to understand that he hasn't lost a beat since he was here before.

1550

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I would like to congratulate the member on his speech and also congratulate him for coming back to visit us, once in a while anyway, even if it's only every four or five years.

The member talked about the legal aid system, and I thought it was very appropriate that he talked about the lack of service and the cutbacks in legal aid, especially in family law, for the simple reason that in my own constituency office we get a number of phone calls every day about the family support program, and it's not working.

As my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich pointed out, I think it's totally wrong for a government to introduce a new program when no alternative services are in place. I thought she was absolutely right to point out to the government that we need changes to some programs, but to make sure that alternative services are in place.

The present minister went on to say with great fanfare that he was going to change the system, that former governments, including ours, were incompetent, yet he made a mess of the present system. Now he's blaming families, he's blaming couples and he's also blaming children for the mess he has created. I think it's about time that this minister and this ministry take their own responsibility and put in place a system that will work.

Mr Bisson: I want to congratulate my colleague Mr Lessard from Windsor-Riverside for what I think was a bang-on speech in regard to where we find ourselves today when it comes to the family support plan. This bill, Bill 128, deals with the particular aspect about how courts are able to assess what support payments should be paid when people are being separated. The member is making the point that once the court makes that order, it is then the responsibility of the family support plan to make sure that the money comes from the payor to the payee.

Ever since Mr Charles Harnick, the Attorney General of this province, made changes to the family support plan and closed the regional offices of what used to be the family support plan, this system has been in a mess. The member talked about what he heard on the campaign trail, which is what we are hearing in our constituency offices all across this province. You're hearing it, the same as I'm hearing it in my riding office, which is, "I am trying to pay support payments to my wife, the money is coming off my paycheque, my employer is deducting the amount of money, but my ex-wife is not getting the money." That's what the payors are telling us. The payees, on the other hand, are saying: "I can't pay my bills. My children are going without food. The rent is not being paid or the hydro or the phone. When I call my husband to find out what happened, I am finding out that the money has been deducted from his cheque."

The problem is, the person in the middle, Charles Harnick, the Attorney General of this province, has messed up the system. We have case after case after case in our constituency offices that we try to deal with through the Attorney General, and he is not able to do anything. We're saying if you're going to enact changes, at least make sure they work so that the people of this province, especially the children, aren't hurt in your zeal for change.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Windsor-Riverside. He is a lawyer, as he mentioned, and as a lawyer he would know how important it is for persons in Ontario with disputes, particularly family disputes, to have access to efficient, inexpensive dispute resolution. This is even more so when children are involved, and children are involved in the vast majority of these unfortunate marriage breakup situations.

I urge him to encourage the other members opposite to deal with this bill expeditiously. This is the third time this bill has been debated on second reading in this place. This bill is designed to give some degree of guidance and some degree of certainty to families, to husbands and wives and children, in situations where there is a marital dispute in the province.

The federal Divorce Act has its guidelines, but of course it only deals with divorce. There are many separated couples in Ontario. There are many common-law couples in Ontario who break up. These people and their children certainly are entitled to expeditious passage of this important piece of legislation so they will have the same rights as those persons who go through divorce proceedings in Ontario governed by federal legislation.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Is the Attorney General going to --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Flaherty: I urge the member opposite to speak to his colleagues and encourage them to deal promptly with this piece of legislation. In fact, by 1996, a year ago, every one of the American states had already dealt with mandatory support guidelines for children of divorced and separated couples.

Mr Bisson: You stop whining like everybody else. You are the government.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Members for Cochrane South and Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Flaherty: This is an important matter. It's serious for all of the children in the province who are children of broken families, and I encourage all members to speedily pass this piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr Lessard: I'm glad to see there were so many people who were listening with interest to my remarks.

To the member for Chatham-Kent, who made some comment about my saying that the government was moving too far, too fast and in the wrong direction, why is it that we can't get speedy passage of this bill if that's the case? I wonder that myself. It seems as though this government is not able to manage their agenda. That's probably the best reason that this legislation isn't through right now.

They don't seem to have any problem when it comes to ramming through Bill 136, which is going to adversely affect the rights of working people here in Ontario. They didn't have any problem with that. They didn't have any problem with speedily moving through Bill 99, which is going to adversely affect injured workers and make changes to the workers' compensation system in Ontario. They didn't have any problem in getting that through really fast. They didn't have any problem in closing those regional offices for the family support plan as well. That was done pretty quickly.

Interjection.

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

Mr Lessard: Why is the government not able to put through this legislation that is so important for women and children in getting their support in this province? I think the members in the government need to ask themselves why it's taking so long and not blame the opposition members for the delay in this legislation.

I just want to say to the member for Ottawa East that I'm not here just for a visit. I hope I'm going to be here for the long term.

I also want to indicate that the important issue here is really the implementation. This legislation will pass. We support it, but it needs to be implemented, and the people who deserve the support need to get it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Carroll: I rise to --

Mr Gerretsen: Don't do it.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

1600

Mr Carroll: It's interesting to be part of such a controversial piece of legislation.

I rise today in support of the Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act, just in case people had forgotten the name of it. Harmonizing the Family Law Act with the federal guidelines will provide one approach for calculating child support for all Ontarians. These guidelines will apply regardless of whether the child support is sought under federal or provincial law.

Throughout this debate members from both opposition parties have registered their support for this bill. We heard that again today. They have applauded the bill's goal of replacing the current practice of determining child support on a case-by-case basis with the more consistent and predictable approach that these guidelines will bring.

We have also heard acknowledgements that Bill 128 will mean a faster, easier and less expensive way for many parents to calculate the amount of support available to their children. Despite this show of support, some opposition members have accused the government of dragging its feet on this bill. I'd like to remind those opposite, especially the member for Windsor-Riverside, who's just newly arrived, that we were ready to proceed with this legislation in June, after the federal guidelines were finalized. It was the opposition members who delayed second reading of this bill.

There are indications now that even though the parties opposite support the bill, they want to refer it to committee for hearings. There's absolutely nothing to be gained but only valuable time to be lost by further reviewing this bill. The purpose of the bill is to bring Ontario in line with federal guidelines which were fully scrutinized and debated at the federal level. Those guidelines were the result of six years of extensive research and consultation by the federal government. They consulted with lawyers, judges, advocacy groups and parents all across Canada. Together they determined that those guidelines provided the best results for the children. Those are the same guidelines that we propose to incorporate into Ontario's Family Law Act.

In October 1996, a House of Commons standing committee met for four days and heard from 14 witnesses. All but three of those witnesses then appeared before the much-publicized Senate hearings in December 1996 and January 1997. The Senate held six days of hearings and listened to 28 witnesses, who represented the broadest possible spectrum of interest, many of whom were from Ontario. They included Phil Epstein, a Toronto family law specialist; the Canadian Bar Association; the Canadian Council for Co-parenting; an organization called SCOPE involved in family support; Fathers Are Capable Too, an organization with the acronym FACT; the National Association of Women and the Law; REAL Women; the Ontario Catholic Women's League; Nicholas Bala, professor of family law at Queen's University; and Ross Finnie, an economist and professor at Carleton.

These witnesses raised every conceivable issue, from the level of awards to sex bias, custody and access, support for post-secondary students, and complaints that the enforcement provisions were too strong. The federal government undertook as a result of these hearings to review custody and access issues, and we fully endorse that review.

As a result of these hearings, a number of amendments and adjustments were made in the federal child support guideline proposals and they are reflected in Ontario's proposed legislation. As other provinces have proceeded to enact their harmonized child support guidelines, they too have relied on the federal hearings as their major source of public input. Only one province, Manitoba, chose to have public hearings, and only one witness applied to be heard at the hearings.

The federal guidelines have been extensively researched and thoroughly debated to ensure that they benefit children. Legal experts and community organizations have told us that bringing Ontario's Family Law Act into line with the federal guidelines is the right thing to do. In this way, all Ontario child support cases will be treated the same way.

At the same time, there appears to be consensus in this place that Bill 128 puts children first and that it is a bill well worth passing. What then, I ask, is the purpose of delaying this bill by more debate in this House or by holding public hearings? It is in the best interests of children and parents involved in child support cases to proceed with this bill as soon as possible.

We urge all members to expedite the passage of Bill 128 so that all affected people in Ontario can benefit from the predictability and consistency that Bill 128 will bring to the calculation of child support in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We've heard over and over again that Bill 128 is going to have to deal with the fact that many of us from throughout the province deal with on a daily basis, and that's the fact that support payments aren't getting through to the people who most need them. We've heard member after member in this House for the past year or so talk about this, talk to Mr Harnick about the problems. I too have had a great number of these problems come to my office on a regular basis since they closed the regional office in Thunder Bay. That was the reason. The reason was that it became a mess after that.

I don't know how many times we have to tell the Attorney General about the problems, but when we bring the cases to him and we talk about a lady who is going to lose her home because she is not receiving the payments, we've tried many times to help out. It's a quagmire out there and we keep bringing this to the attention of the Attorney General and getting nowhere

At one point, I was telling him in a question to him about a company in my riding which has been there for many years, a well-established, well-developed company. They too are being tarnished because they were told that the payments were not being made through the proper channels in order that the recipient could get the payments. We got back into the quagmire that was formed by moving the regional office out of the area, out of Thunder Bay, not only creating hardship for the recipient but creating hardship for the company, which was doing everything by the law and submitting the payments. But again, it was just a problem created through the Attorney General's office. I wish the members opposite would hear this and speak to the person who is responsible, the Attorney General.

Mr Len Wood: I listened very attentively to the member for Chatham-Kent, concerned that the opposition parties were holding up Bill 128, the child support guidelines. Most of the comments he made during the seven or eight minutes that he was talking were concern that Bill 128 should pass through without any public hearings and that it should go to third reading and become law. Even if it does, even if that process were to be followed, as long as we have an Attorney General who is so incompetent that in January, when he closed down all the regional offices, put everything into trucks and left the boxes lying all over the place, not secure or anything at all -- as long as we have this situation that hasn't been rectified yet -- it happened in January when they closed down the regional offices and laid off all the staff, and the women and children in most cases are not getting the money that is being taken off the paycheques. We don't know where it is. It must be piled up in one of the offices that the Attorney General is responsible for.

So for the member for Chatham-Kent to say that the opposition parties are holding this legislation up, there's no fact to that charge at all. We were back in January in an emergency winter sitting of the Legislature to deal with whatever agenda the Conservative government wanted to bring forward. Then they called an emergency summer sitting of the Legislature. We came back on August 18 to deal with whatever the government felt was a priority to get passed into legislation. Now they're saying it's the opposition parties that are not cooperating to bring this legislation through.

How incompetent can a government be that they have to bring back the Legislature in two emergency sessions inside of nine months to try to get their agenda through? Their priorities are all over the place. They don't have any priorities.

1610

Mr Parker: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the remarks by my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent. I would like to remind my friends opposite that the member for Chatham-Kent was speaking on the subject of Bill 128 and not on the subject of the Family Responsibility Office. If he was speaking on the subject of the Family Responsibility Office, he might have spoken at some great length about the absolute mess that the so-called family support plan was in when this government took office and the unforgivable backlog that was left to this government to clean up, with boxes upon boxes of files left untouched in the regional offices and all of the phone calls that went unanswered as the office was inadequate to meet the needs that were out there, and about the heroic efforts this government is putting forward to get through that backlog and to put the whole plan on a more stable and sustainable footing under the Family Responsibility Office and the much better service that the people of this province are receiving from the Family Responsibility Office under this government than they ever received under the family support plan under the previous government.

But that is not what this debate is about, of course. This debate is about Bill 128, which is about uniform child support guidelines; it's about bringing the Ontario legislation into conformity with the federal legislation. As my friend from Durham mentioned earlier, the federal legislation is restricted to Divorce Act settlements, those cases that are resolved under the federal Divorce Act and administered under the federal legislation. In Ontario, we have the Family Law Act, which applies where the Divorce Act is not brought in. This provision here will bring the family support act in Ontario into line with the federal legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Chatham-Kent, you have two minutes.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the interest shown by the member for Kenora, the member for Cochrane North and my colleague the member for York East. It's interesting that my colleague from York East seemed to be the only one who was paying attention to anything I said, because he's the only one who made any comment on what I said.

The member for Cochrane North talked about our government calling the Legislature back for special sessions so we could advance our agenda. I guess we're making up for the year 1994-95, the last year of the former government, when the Legislature sat vacant for probably 11 of the 12 months of the year. I think those people who work in this place like to see it busy and like to see that we are advancing our agenda, because the people of Ontario need us to do that.

Bill 128 is one small example of some legislation that should have passed through here very simply, that should have been accepted by all party members and should have become law long before now, because it is in the best interests of the young people in our province and some of those single parents who are having trouble with child support issues. That should have happened a long time ago. Unfortunately, because of the way we do things in this place, it didn't happen, and that's sad, because nobody wins in that particular environment; everybody turns out to be losers.

I would hope that today sees the end of the debate on this bill, that we get it done, that we get it enacted, so that the people in the province who need the assistance this bill will provide, namely, young people and single parents or parents who are owed support from their former spouse, can get on with their lives, lead productive lives. That's all we're trying to do. I would hope the opposition members support us in that cause.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): First of all, I want to begin by welcoming my colleague from Windsor, Mr Lessard. I can tell members in the House he's an able and competent campaigner and speaks passionately on the issues he believes in and is worthy of listening to on issues, though we don't agree.

I would like to begin by saying that I personally will be voting in favour of this bill. I think it's a step in the right direction, and I think we need to be speaking about some fundamentals and some things this bill represents, because government members opposite have tried to suggest to us that we're not talking on topic when we speak about things like going too far, too fast. This issue is a great example of what happens when a government does something without considering the consequences. You were able to shut down the family support plan offices a lot faster than you're able to pass this bill, and what did you do? You created chaos.

I've raised issue after issue in this House. Isn't it amazing when you get a case -- one case happened in January. A woman died waiting for her support payment. When you raise it in the House, presto, you get a call from the Family Responsibility Office five minutes after you've stood up. But God help you if you're a woman in Windsor with cancer waiting for a family support plan payment.

So when you talk to me about dealing with this bill quickly, great. How is it you could close those offices so fast? Let me tell you, you created a mess. You know it, every one of you. You've had the same calls we have. You didn't think through the consequences. You didn't think for a minute, did you, that if you close six offices and lay off staff, lay off lawyers, lay off advocates, and don't even have another replacement office open, there are going to be problems?

I know many of the government members are small business people, and they know how to run an efficient operation; they're customer-service oriented. Let's remember who the customers are in this case. It's single mothers with children, who wait for those cheques to be deposited in their bank.

Yes, there was a mess when you came to office. There is no question about that. There is no question that we had to do better. There's no question that in this Legislature we had to be debating all kinds of options. The problem is that you moved and closed those offices without thinking through the consequences. Lo and behold, a year later you bring in another bill. So what do we have? We have a government that starts by closing an important office that serves people in their home communities and serves them in a relatively efficient manner, and you started a mess.

I will tell you the experience in my constituency office. Members may or may not have the same experiences. I am seeing now that cases when we call are being dealt with more quickly than they were before. There's no question. Instead of taking three weeks, it's now taking 10 days. But the fact remains that the situation should never have occurred. Had you taken a reasonable, moderate, balanced approach to this issue, looked at the backlog on the one hand, looked at alternatives for service delivery, looked at the timing of change, and coordinated that with initiatives like this, my friends, you would not have done the irreparable harm that you have done to tens of thousands of our poorest and most vulnerable fellow citizens.

So I say to the members opposite, too far, too fast is precisely what we should be talking about, because this issue is in and of itself an example of what goes wrong when you come in with an ideological agenda, without thinking of the facts, and the government doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story too often.

1620

I was pleased to hear the member for Chatham support the federal government on what they've done and to say that this is something we should be doing. We don't disagree; we're going to vote in favour of this. But the question remains: How is it you could close the family support plan offices in a matter of weeks and leave those women and children without a mechanism for collecting their payments, yet you can't get this bill through the House, can't use your majority? It's because it's not important enough to you, just like health care is not important enough to you, just like you can close hospitals in Windsor and not provide for reinvestment prior to those hospitals closing.

Let me tell you, members opposite, the emergency room situation in Windsor is but the tip of the iceberg. The Health Services Restructuring Commission met today to consider a range of investment options, and when they come to your community and they don't do it, you'll get the calls.

On this particular bill, we know that this bill is going in the right direction, but the horror stories continue. Yes, the response is going quicker. It's not 10 days; it's seven days, six days, five days. But we say to the government that when you make change of this magnitude, it affects people, whether it be in health care, whether it be in education, whether it be in family support plan offices.

When you move to address the problems -- and you as a government are faced with significant problems, no question, and you inherited a bad situation in this case, no question -- we urge you to think things through, do things carefully, be balanced, review the options so you're not left with the kind of situation we were all confronted with when you closed the regional family support plan offices.

We believe, by the way, that those offices should stay open. We believe that people are better served in their own community. We believe, based on the hundreds of phone calls and meetings we've been a part of, that they are the right way to go. We introduced those offices. It was a Liberal government that brought that plan into being in this province.

I am convinced more than ever that when governments want to centralize bureaucracy and make it big and deliver services from Toronto instead of in people's home communities, it won't work. This is precisely the example we should be considering when we talk about megacities like Chatham, when we talk about megacities like Toronto. What kind of bureaucracy are we creating, and will it serve the people it's intended to serve or will it be inefficient and leave the most vulnerable behind?

I applaud the government on this bill. I will be casting my vote in favour. It is a step in the right direction. It makes good sense, not just common sense. It strikes me as being an important element in the delivery of support to families and children who need it. I urge the government in your deliberations, be it on this issue or any other -- there were individuals who went weeks and months without support payments simply because they were tied up in an unfunctioning bureaucracy. Was that cost to them associated with your attempted cleanup really worth it? Had we taken a few more months, discussed alternatives, looked at options -- that may not suit you, but I tell you, it would suit the people of this province. As we change, as we adjust to the realities of the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, we have an obligation to move with prudence, with due consideration to the impact our decisions and legislation have on the lives of people, even if it's something like this that I think it would be pretty hard to disagree with. Do things right the first time and save the heartache that you created with the family support plan offices.

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the Member for Dovercourt -- Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): How can you forget, Speaker, now that my riding has a soap opera named after it?

I'm happy to be able to speak for a couple of minutes in response to the comments by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. The member for Windsor-Walkerville gets to the heart of the issue here. Although the members from the Tory party stand up and complain -- I know they'll do it continually -- that all the opposition is doing is talking about issues other than this particular bill, I have to say they are connected. The member for Windsor-Walkerville talked about why. Whether you like it or not, you're going to keep hearing us talk about the mess at the family support plan.

I would say in response to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who said that indeed you inherited a mess, I guess all new governments like to blame previous governments for any so-called mess they inherit, and they continue to do it on and on. There's only so long you can do that, and you're past that point.

I have to give credit: I believe it was under the Liberal-NDP accord, and I know Ian Scott was the first Attorney General to start this program. We've always said there were problems with it. It was underresourced. There were problems when we were the government, no doubt about it. There were certainly problems when the Liberals first brought it in as a new program. We improved on it. God knows, it needed more improvements. We have never denied that.

But your government took it and pulled it apart. When the members over there stand up and say they inherited this awful mess and there were boxes covered in dust, you are not fooling the people out there. The women and children who used to get their payments under our government and under the Liberal government stopped getting their payments. That is the reality.

Mr Carroll: I need to comment on my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville's expression of my support for the federal government. I cannot let that go totally unchallenged. In this particular initiative, I do support the federal government, as I think we should when one of our co-governments does something right. It doesn't happen that often at the federal level, but in this particular case it happened and I think it's okay to support that. I would of course expect that the member for Windsor-Walkerville would see the opportune time to support this provincial government when and if he agrees with anything we do.

I had given most of the blame for the family support plan situation that exists in the province to our friends in the third party. It's nice for the official opposition to acknowledge that they started the mess. The member for Windsor-Walkerville would like to continue the mess. He said, "We think the offices should stay open." What he's saying is the status quo, which hasn't worked for the last 10 years, should be maintained.

The members in the third party say: "Yes, we agree with that. We tried to improve the mess that the Liberals gave us. We didn't get it fixed properly, but you guys are trying to change it." I think 10 or 12 years of trying to make a program work and spending millions and millions of dollars on it and having a situation where there are thousands of calls every day that go unanswered, millions of dollars of money that doesn't get from the person who pays it to the person who should receive it -- I think 10 years is long enough to give it a trial, and it's okay to change it. That's what we're attempting to do.

Bill 128 doesn't specifically do that, but I am pleased that the member for Windsor-Walkerville has stood in his place today and given our government support on that bill. We appreciate that.

1630

Mr Miclash: As the member for Windsor-Walkerville has indicated, this is a bill that we certainly can support. The member for Chatham-Kent was just talking a little bit about where the plan began. I have to say to him that I was here when the plan began under the Attorney General. It was a plan that was working fairly well, and it was a plan that was improved upon by the third party as they moved forward, but then we had an Attorney General come in and mess up the entire program. It is a mess today. This is a thing that you're hearing in your office, I'm hearing in my office, all the members from around Ontario are hearing in their offices. It's a plan that your Attorney General has messed up. When are you going to get that through to your Attorney General?

The member has indicated, yes, we'll support Bill 128, but we'll also support any plans or any help we can give the Attorney General in ensuring that our constituents aren't being put behind the eight-ball when it comes to their support payments, to ensure that our companies aren't being given a bad reputation when they find out that the support payment is not getting through the channels because the regional offices have been closed. We've been saying that day after day after day.

This is a plan that was brought into place to fix a situation. Here we have a situation which has grown worse and more out of proportion than this Attorney General would have ever thought. The closing of the regional offices has created a mess. We've said that a million times if we've said it once. We have to get that through to the Attorney General on behalf of the single parents out there who are not receiving their support payments, on behalf of the children who are being affected because they're not receiving the support payments they deserve.

To the member for Chatham-Kent, this is the problem. Yes, we do support Bill 128 and we do support cleaning up this mess.

Mr Lessard: I want to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville, especially his remarks at the outset, when he talked about my capabilities and qualifications. I only wonder why he wasn't saying things like that in 1995. I wish I could use it in my next campaign brochure. Maybe I will.

One of the things he did say that I disagree with is that this government started with a mess when it came to the family support plan in 1995. I disagree with that. There may be differences of opinion with respect to that. We know it wasn't perfect, that there was some room for improvement.

I think the member for Windsor-Walkerville and everybody will agree that one of the things you don't do is just make a mess, if that's what you think it is, even worse. What have they done? They say they had a mess. They appointed the current Attorney General as the person who is Mr Fixit and the person who is given the lead role in trying to address a mess that they say is there, and look at the results he has had. I think that's evidence in itself.

He made some comments as well about why this legislation hasn't been passed, even though everybody agrees that it should. He indicated his support for the legislation as well. But he really addressed the priorities of this government. When it comes to closing the regional offices, they didn't have any problem in doing that quickly and expeditiously. When it came to closing hospitals, no problem. When it comes to jamming through legislation like Bill 136 or Bill 99, there are no problems with that.

Why is it that they have a problem with getting this legislation through? It really is their priorities. They're not focused on the concerns of women and children. That's the only reason. That's the reason that the enforcement mechanisms they introduced almost a year ago haven't collected one single penny of support for people who deserve it.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: Thanks to the members who responded. I listened with interest to the member for Chatham-Kent. I was reminded of Kipling's words about "words you've spoken with truth twisted by knaves that make a trap for fools." I support your bill. You said to me, "Why don't you sometimes?" The very first thing I said was, "I support your bill." It's a step in the right direction, there's no question. But I urge the government members again, when you make change, particularly of the magnitude that you are contemplating, be it in this, be it in health care or be it in education, you would be wise to move carefully and cautiously.

It was not a complete mess, with all due respect to the member for Chatham-Kent. It worked rather well, and it worked to serve people. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? No, not at all. The $100 million in uncollected payments, certainly you have to deal with that; certainly you do. But you don't do it by ripping the guts out of a program before you have something in place to replace it, especially when you're dealing with the lives of children and women who rely on those payments.

I would suggest to the members opposite that this family support plan that you dealt with early on should be indicative of what can happen to you when you move without thought, when you do things for the wrong reason. If you want change, have reason to make consultation, involve people and move process along, be careful --

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Lessard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've already participated in the debate, but for the benefit of the next speaker I believe we should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: I will say at the outset that because of the new draconian rules to shut down the opposition down, I only have 10 minutes to speak to this important bill. I'm sure, Speaker, you can relate to this. I am one of the Deputy Speakers, as are you, and we don't get to speak as often as we might like on some of these important bills.

I'm not complaining; it's just a fact. I love my job and appreciate doing it, and appreciate having the opportunity. But I don't get as many opportunities as I would like sometimes to speak on bills. I certainly resent the fact that now, because of those rule changes to shut the opposition down and speed things up as much as possible, I only get 10 minutes to speak on this bill today.

Interjections.

Ms Churley: I think it's important to remind people, as the opposition say, "Oh, you've just wasted a minute talking about this," that that is what the government has done. They have shut down the opposition, and that includes the people out there, to the largest extent that they have been able to do.

1640

I've heard time and time again today in great outrageous tones: "It's the opposition who held this bill up. This is an important bill. You all say you support it. Why are you holding it up?" Let me remind the government members, in case they're not clear on how this place works yet, it's the House leader, I suppose in consultation with the Premier and some other members, who decides what comes before this House. I'll remind the members there are three readings. At first reading there is no debate, on second reading there is debate, sometimes committee hearings. Obviously on a bill like this that we all support, there aren't committee hearings. Then, after a vote on that, we go into third reading, more debate, and then there's royal assent.

The opposition should be given the opportunity, and should not be berated for choosing to want, to debate an important bill. I want to remind the members that it's up to them when they call bills. They have been able to ram through all kinds of other bills one, two, three, bringing in closure, bringing in time allocation. Bill 136, for instance, is one they really wanted to ram through. They tried to do it with Bill 26. It didn't work because we held them up. But this is par for the course with this government.

I would say to the people who are listening to this nonsense that this opposition is holding up such an important bill that it's they who have been holding up the bill. If they think it's so important, it should have been on their priority list. Why have there been so many days and so many gaps in calling the reading? I think that's a disgrace and I don't think we should hear any more about that nonsense, because clearly, as always, this government, these members try to place the blame on the opposition or commissions or arm's-length bodies. They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. This bill could have been passed a long time ago and it's their own fault that it hasn't been.

I want to talk briefly about the importance of this bill. My colleague from London Centre gave very good opening remarks on this bill on behalf of our caucus and went into a great deal of detail about the implications of it. It's a very important bill and it should be passed quickly. The government should have brought it through the House a lot more quickly than they did. I'm not going to go into the details. I believe that people have done that. It's actually pretty straightforward and important that it be done, and I congratulate the government on moving forward with it. But you're not going to shut down this caucus --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Speaker: My apologies to the member, but there isn't a quorum again. Why can't the Tories keep a quorum here? They've got so many members.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you please check.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: You're not going to shut down this caucus from talking about the problems at the family support plan until they are fixed. As I said earlier, and all the members from my caucus have always said, there were problems with the plan. There were problems when the Liberals brought it in. There were problems when we took it over. It was underresourced. It needed more resources. That's the point we're trying to make here. What did this government do? What did the Attorney General, Charles Harnick, do when he took over? Instead of looking at it and thinking, "This plan needs more resources," he tore it apart. He had to find money for the tax cut. He took money out of it. He closed eight regional offices and fired over 100 -- I forget the number now -- experienced workers. The plan was left a mess. There's no doubt about it.

They opened up a regional office. It was full of unopened boxes, computers not plugged in. That is the reality. No matter how much the government members yell and scream and say, "It's all the Liberals' fault, it's all the NDP's fault, it's not our fault," that is not the case. Charles Harnick took it over and made it far worse.

I'm going to tell you why we will not shut up about it until it's fixed. We know for a fact -- we have the evidence, and the Attorney General and the members in this room have the evidence too -- that women and children who were getting their payments on time under our government -- I'm talking in numbers of thousands -- stopped getting their cheques on time.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): That's not true.

Mr Parker: Not true.

Ms Churley: I hear members over there say that's not true. I can assure you, Speaker, that I do not tell a lie. It is the truth and we have all kinds of evidence of that. The members know it, which is why they're so defensive on this issue. Surely they're getting the same calls in their offices, the same letters. We have the evidence that the women and children who were getting their money before, under our government, under the Liberal government, stopped getting their money. That is a fact. So the member for York East can get up and self-righteously talk about the boxes covered in dust and all of these things and the terrible mess they inherited; it is not the case.

They had a level of problems and they needed to work from that base to start fixing, which is what our government was doing, but they didn't say: "Let's take a long look at where the problems are. Let's look at what the NDP were doing with this, where they were going. Let's talk to people and figure out what to do." What did the Attorney General do but just rip it all apart and talk to no one, because he had to save money for the tax cut? The irony is that it is in such a mess that it's quite likely he's going to have to put in more money than he took out, and the tragedy is that a lot of it will have to go towards fixing up the mess that was created.

The reason we will bring this up repeatedly, over and over again, is that, I may remind all members of the House, when we stand up here and point fingers at each other, "It's your fault," "It's your fault," "It's your fault," let's remember that there are women and children out here who were affected by this in a negative way. I got letters and phone calls. I met with women who were going for months and months. They couldn't pay their bills. Some of them lost of their houses or were kicked out of their apartments. All kinds of awful happened to people, and it still is happening to them.

We must not forget in these discussions, and sometimes we get somewhat abstract when we're talking about these bills in this place --

Mr Lessard: Not you.

Ms Churley: But no, not me. Because I am the critic for our party for women's issues, perhaps I deal more directly with women across the province who have experienced problems since this government took over and since Charles Harnick, the Attorney General, took over the family support plan, maybe more than everybody. Generally you will deal with mostly people in your own riding; I have been dealing with women and kids across the province since this government took over the family plan. It is heartaching at times when you hear what these people went through.

Let us all bear in mind that we have got a problem here, and the problem was created because an already underresourced situation was made worse. You cannot deny that fact. It is a reality. I want to see the members of this government go to the Attorney General and the Premier and say that you will not tolerate this government, your own government, ripping money out of the pockets of kids and their mothers -- this is not even taxpayers' money; it's money legitimately coming from in most cases their fathers -- that you won't tolerate that and you want the problem fixed now.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Flaherty: I listened to the comments of the member for Riverdale, who is the NDP's women's critic, as I understand it. She complains about draconian rules. She had 10 minutes to speak, of which she spent exactly zero time talking about Bill 128, which deals with child support guidelines in Ontario. For our government, kids come first.

This is an important bill for the support of children in this province. The federal government guidelines are already in place. Many other provinces have already acted on this. This bill was introduced in June of this year. This is the third day of second reading debate on this bill.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Why didn't you call it before?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Flaherty: She says there's an effort to shut down the opposition. As I say, it's the third day of debate on second reading on this bill. This is a bill that she says she supports. She doesn't talk about the bill in the Legislature. It delays getting the guidelines in place for single mothers, for the children of families that have suffered marital dissolution in the province of Ontario. That's what it means. She wastes 10 minutes of time without even debating the bill that is before the Legislature. She says it's debate on an important bill. Debate means posing different points of view, rational debate.

What is it in Bill 128 that you don't like? If there isn't something in the bill that you don't like, why are you standing up and pretending you're debating the bill? If you support the bill, stand up and say: "We support the bill. We want to move it forward. We care about kids. It's important for the children in the Ontario that they have this sort of certainty, that guidelines are in place for the support of children and single mothers in the province." It's extremely important. I invite you, if you disagree with something in the bill, to say what it is you disagree with. If not, let's get on with it for the sake of the kids in the province.

Mr Miclash: I've just heard something in this House that I didn't think I would ever hear, and that's the member from the government party saying to his party, "Kids come first." I have to ask the member, if kids come first over there, why wasn't this piece of legislation brought in a lot sooner?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma, order.

Mr Miclash: The member for Riverdale, the critic of the third party for women's issues, has illustrated to the members across the way a point that they've heard in their offices, a point that we've heard in our offices. It's kids that are being hurt out there because the Attorney General can't get his act in order.

I spoke earlier about the regional offices. The member for Riverdale spoke about the closing of regional offices. The member for Durham Centre can't seem to get it through to himself that it was the closing of the regional offices that affected the kids, the kids of the single parent who's coming into my office, into his office, saying there are problems with this plan. It's not because of the employer, not because of the spouse, as the member for Riverdale has indicated, often the father. It's because the payments are not getting through following up the closing of the regional offices. I can't say that enough. I'm seeing too many cases, my colleagues are seeing too many cases, the members opposite are seeing too many cases. When are these people going to realize that?

Again, as the member for Riverdale has indicated, we support this piece of legislation. We want to know why it wasn't up here earlier if kids come first for this government. I commend her for her comments and for the research she's done across the province.

Mr Wildman: I listened to the comments of the member for Riverdale in my office on the TV and then I came in to listen to the last portion of her speech because I know how knowledgeable she is with regard to the whole problem of family support in this province.

I think it's very odd to have members opposite arguing that the House leaders for the official opposition and the third party, my friend from St Catharines and myself, somehow are able to hold up legislation in this House. I wish we had that power, frankly. I really wish we had that power, but we don't. The fact is that the government House leader -- nobody else -- decides when bills are to be called. He is the one who determines whether you deal with it in June or in late September.

Mr Flaherty: Three days of debate.

Mr Wildman: The opposition can determine how many days they want to debate, but whether those three days are in June or in late September is the responsibility of the government House leader and nobody else.

The fact is that we support this legislation. As the member for Riverdale said, we are very concerned, though, that even if this bill passes, the government will not be able to properly implement it because of the mess the Attorney General has made of the family support plan. Ever since the regional offices were closed and all of those staff were laid off, our offices have been inundated by people who can't get their support payments. I've had one staff person working half of her time in my constituency office on this problem and still we have people who haven't had payments from January --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm also pleased to respond to the member for Riverdale, whose complaint was with respect to the 10-minute limitation on the time. As the member for Durham Centre has pointed out, I think your time should be spent focusing on the issues within the bill.

For me, it's most important to remind people who may be viewing today that starting October 22, 1997, in 43 different communities throughout the province, this government is going to provide a public forum for people to be informed. Furthermore, we have a child support guideline, a booklet that's available. I think this booklet answers most of the questions that people have who are in the midst of these difficult times in their lives. If they want to call the referral number, 1-800-268-8326, that's a toll-free number.

I would ask for unanimous consent that the member for Durham Centre be given another two minutes to respond to the allegation that we don't care about children. I'm asking for unanimous consent, Mr Speaker, on that issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the member for Durham Centre have two minutes to explain? No.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, the member for Durham Centre has very capably focused today. They've refused to give us the time to try and relate to the people who might be viewing today who need to know how to solve the problems when it comes to child support, the family guidelines.

As the member for Durham Centre has said a couple of times, the confusion that's out there -- the federal government and other provinces have taken the time to develop the guidelines. The people can find out. Remember to call 1-800-268-8326 or attend one of the open sessions that will start October 22 to explain the details of this important bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale, two minutes.

Ms Churley: To the members for Durham Centre, Algoma, Durham East and Kenora, thank you very much for your comments.

I want to say to the member for Durham Centre that he just doesn't get it. When you say, "Kids come first," yes, kids come first in Mike Harris's Ontario all right. We have more kids lining up at food banks, living in hostels, going to school hungry. That's the kind of caring this government is showing to kids.

The member for Algoma repeated again some of the things I said, I think even more forcefully, about how it's the government's responsibility, the government's alone, to bring in bills. If you introduce it in June, why wait till the end of September to bring it back? It's your responsibility, so don't give us that.

To the member for Kenora, I'd like to thank you for your remarks. I believe you reiterated again that we're talking about kids and their mothers here. Let's bear that in mind.

To the member for Durham East, it's not enough that the government cuts my time down to 10 minutes, but now he thinks as a government member that he can tell me what I should say in my 10 minutes. No, thank you. I will get up here --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Sorry, but I'm opposed to a lot of the things you are doing that are directly hurting kids and I will continue repeatedly to speak out about that. When he holds up a booklet, let me say to the member for Durham East that kids can't eat your lousy booklet. They can't eat your 1-800 number. We're talking here and reminding you that the kids need to get the money their fathers or mothers have paid into the plan. So yes, I support this bill; we all support this bill. Get on with it, but the most important thing is to fix that family support plan.

1700

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I rise to support the Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act. What we are asking the Legislature to do here today and in these discussions is to bring Ontario's Family Law Act into line with the federal child support guidelines. By doing so, the same approach to calculating child support will apply regardless of whether a child support order is made under federal or provincial law. By harmonizing the guidelines with the federal guidelines, we will provide for the consistency of approach that legal experts and community organizations have stressed as being so important to avoid confusion and, most important, inequity for families in Ontario.

In second reading debate, members of all parties have recognized the importance of this legislation and have indicated their support for the bill. The bill provides a consistent approach to calculating child support in Ontario. It does so by bringing Ontario's Family Law Act into line with the federal child support guidelines which took effect May 1, 1997. The federal guidelines replace the current case-by-case approach to determining child support in divorce cases.

These guidelines will allow parents and judges to calculate the amount of child support in divorce cases by referring to a support table or grid. This support table sets out the amount of child support based on the payor's income and the number of children entitled to support. At the same time, the guidelines allow for some flexibility to pay more or less than the support table in certain circumstances. This approach will provide many parents with a faster, easier and less expensive way to determine the amount of support their children are entitled to.

The member for London Centre has stressed another benefit of moving from the case-by-case approach to a more predictable method of setting child support levels. Since the guidelines will allow many parents to determine what level of support a child will receive, a judge is likely to order before they get to court --

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My apologies to the member, but there really should be a quorum here to hear what she has to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you check and see if a quorum is present?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Durham-York.

Mrs Munro: I would just like to continue and certainly recognize the fact that we are now able to establish quorum.

Since the guidelines allow many parents to determine what level of child support a judge is likely to order before they get to court, it's been clearly noted that this will allow us to avoid lengthy and costly court battles that very often ensue.

Throughout this debate, the opposition has raised the need to inform clients about the guidelines and to effectively put in systems to deal with the demand for variations to child support orders. This government has made those preparations. We are already implementing the guidelines. We have been doing that since May 1 in the General Division courts that deal with divorce cases which are covered by the guidelines. We are ready to do the same for cases that fall under the Family Law Act if and when Bill 128 becomes law.

We already have the most comprehensive implementation of any of the provinces. Our initiatives include a toll-free 1-800 public inquiry line, consumer information kits, trained staff in the courts to provide information and a series of public information sessions on the guidelines to be held in 43 communities, starting October 22. These sessions will be held in cities across the province in conjunction with local lawyers who have been trained by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

We are pleased with the support and enthusiasm we have received from lawyers throughout Ontario. The member for London Centre has already commended this government for its educational initiatives for the public and for the court system. With regard to variations, public education is a key strategy to manage the increase in caseload that may result from these guidelines.

First, by informing the public and encouraging them to review the guidelines, it is hoped the parties may be able to reach consent agreements before they get to court. This will cut down court time and costs. Federal publications have explained how their guidelines work and Ontario's public education sessions will greatly assist this goal.

Second, our family court staff have been trained in the use of the guidelines and can assist people in filing their applications. Additional training of court staff is planned for this fall.

Third, the courts are already closely monitoring activity related to the guidelines and are prepared to deal with increased demand. Negotiations are under way with the federal government to secure necessary funding. We are already implementing the federal guidelines, but until this bill becomes law, we cannot implement them for all the children in Ontario. This is because so many parents with child support orders, such as those who are separated or were never married, fall under the Family Law Act. Not passing Bill 128 only serves to perpetuate the confusion that two different approaches under two different sets of laws pose for the public.

The member for London Centre stated that this is a bill that both oppositions have clearly indicated they are prepared to support. This support has been voiced by the members for Downsview, Parkdale, Fort York, Welland-Thorold and Scarborough-Agincourt. We urge the members to take action now to expedite passage of Bill 128, a bill that puts children first and that treats all Ontario families the same.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Miclash: I would like to congratulate the member for Durham-York on her comments and her contribution to the debate this afternoon.

The member for Durham-York indicated there are parents out there with support orders, and I must remind the member that's something we've been saying for the last 18 months. Yes, there are parents out there with child support orders. The unfortunate thing about it is that they are no good to those parents when the child support order cannot be followed through upon and when the payments don't flow.

You indicated, much as did a member earlier on, your colleague who sits in the front of you, that children come first. I don't think this government has proven that to anyone. I don't think there's anyone out there believing that, especially the members in this House who hear on a regular basis -- you've heard from all of us, the Premier has heard from us on a regular basis -- that it's just not happening.

We talked about the regional offices earlier on, about how they were instrumental in ensuring that yes, children came first. Why would you close the regional offices down and create chaos if your party truly believed in the fact that children come first? Why would we be hearing from all those parents who cannot provide for their children? Why would we be hearing from those companies that are saying, "We're doing our thing, we're putting forth the payments, we're ensuring that we follow the rules and regulations"?

It's the government that is blocking the payments. They are not getting through to the actual people who need them: the children. As many times as you can indicate that your government believes children come first, I will stand up and tell you that according to my office and the people coming through to my office, it's not getting to where it's supposed to be: to the children.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate the comments of the member for Durham-York. As they stand alone they are, I suppose, somewhat irrefutable. She spoke about the need for this legislation and we quite frankly agree, which is why we have questioned why the government House leader allowed it to linger so long before finally calling it for debate here in the House. The fact is that the government House leader has put other matters ahead of this, has put this low on the scale in terms of this government's priorities. We understand that even today the government House leader wanted to debate his cottagers bill, somehow placing cottagers higher on the scale of preference than kids. I have some problems with this government talking a big game about their commitment to kids and moms.

Here's the government that pulled, stole $12 million, well, $11.5 million, to be more precise, out of funding for children's aid societies across the province at a time when the demand for services from children's aid is escalating. We know that the increased demand was concurrent with the attack on single moms and the poorest families when this government slashed social assistance benefits to the poorest people in our province by just shy of 22%. How do they respond? They cut back on $11.5 million worth of funding to children's aid societies as demand escalates.

I tell you, this is a government that has abandoned kids, abandoned poor people, abandoned single moms, abandoned the sick, abandoned the unemployed, and it does it all in the name of a tax break, two thirds of which is going to go to the top 10% of income earners. They are telling kids in this province to pay for that tax break for the rich. Shame.

Mr Parker: I want to say what a pleasure it was to listen to the remarks of my colleague from Durham-York, who seems to be the only speaker since the member for Durham Centre who has a grasp of the subject matter of the bill we are here to debate today.

We've heard a lot of complaints about the time available to comment on this bill, but as opposition members get up and speak, they talk about everything but this bill. The member for Durham-York did a very good job of summarizing the content and impact and essential nature of the bill and she was able to do that in less than the 10 minutes available to her to speak to this House.

The opposition has insisted on three days of debate on this bill. I would understand the need for extensive debate on this bill if the opposition had something useful to say about it, but when the opposition gets their opportunity to stand and speak in this debate, they don't talk about this bill at all; they talk about virtually everything else. But the member for Durham-York was able to summarize the entire bill and explain what it's about in less than the 10 minutes that was available to her to speak.

I know that if she had wanted to speak at greater length, she might have quoted from Phil Epstein, one of the leading matrimonial lawyers in Toronto, one of the leading matrimonial lawyers across the country, who says:

"This is a progressive step by the Ontario government and will undoubtedly provide a better and more effective method of determining child support. The adoption of the guidelines will lower legal costs for parents, speed up the resolution of family disputes and create predictability and certainty. Above all, they will ensure more consistent treatment to support-paying parents and yet provide sufficient flexibility to ensure awards are fair and relate to individual family circumstances."

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too welcome the opportunity to comment on those remarks made by the member for Durham-York. I think the member very well articulated the points of this bill as they compare to federal guidelines and I want to compliment her on her comments.

It's interesting to note, though, that when the member for York East pointed out that the member for Durham-York was able to do it in less than the 10 minutes allowed, it took most of his two minutes to go on, not on what the member for Durham-York was saying but on what members throughout the Legislature have been saying today. I guess it depends on which side of the House you're sitting on as to who you should criticize. I'm surprised that he too didn't get up and take his full two minutes to speak directly to this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham-York has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Munro: I certainly appreciate the comments that have come from the members for Kenora, Welland-Thorold, York East and Essex South.

Throughout the debate this afternoon there has been reference made to the question of clouding the issue, the fact that we are looking at Bill 128 and yet it seems to engender a great deal of response in regard to other issues by members of the opposition. It became clear as well in those comments that were made by the members. I think, however, that perhaps one of the things that can be drawn from the comments that have been made is the fact that there is a very clear sense of support for this bill, and therefore the only things that can be said are to take issue with other areas.

The question the member for Kenora raises on the issue of child support needs to be examined, certainly on the basis of the record of this government in making those changes that were clearly necessary. By increasing the staff from 90 to 139, by reducing the amount of time, we have very clearly recognized a problem and have addressed that.

On the issue of the support that members of the community have seen fit to provide for this bill, I think it speaks directly to the need for continued cooperation in providing those services that best meet the needs of children. That, quite frankly, is what we are doing in this as in other pieces of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Crozier: I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Uniform Federal and Provincial Child Support Guidelines Act, 1997, Bill 128. I want to say to you, Speaker, and to the members assembled today that what we are talking about is in fact all about kids. In this bill we talk about parents agreeing, we talk about courts, we talk about agencies, but the result of all of it is what we think and how are we reacting towards the future of our kids, and well we should.

I think children are our most important asset. If the government really believes that kids come first, I would recommend to them that they have a minister who is responsible for children, who is responsible for youth, because we all know that children, as they're referred to in this context, are too young to vote. They have no voice. Children can't come before our committees, even one that might discuss a bill similar to this. Therefore, they have no voice. When social services are either enhanced or withdraw, but particularly when they're withdrawn, kids have no voice. When social services are restricted -- and I think of a young lady in my riding by the name of Kimberly. When home care is restricted because the government just says there isn't enough money -- they don't deny that she has the need, but there isn't enough money -- she's affected, but she has no voice.

1720

I'm glad and pleased that the goals of this piece of legislation are commendable. They are goals we can support. In the few minutes I have left, part of what I say will be directly to Bill 128. I'll warn you ahead of time that part of what I have to say, although it isn't in Bill 128, certainly flows from Bill 128 and I think therefore can be connected to it and is worth mentioning at this time.

We realize that it's going to provide uniformity with the Divorce Act of Canada and the Family Law Act of Ontario. It should allow for flexibility, and this bill does, so that courts can use the guidelines and alter the circumstances a bit from what the guidelines might say, dependent upon the exceptional circumstances the court may see.

I've listened to the debate here in the House and I've watched a bit of it on television back in my office. In spite of the criticism the government members make of the references to other acts that flow from the results of this act, those references should be taken in the context in which they're given, and that is, as I said at the outset, that we're all concerned about children.

I haven't been in this Legislature much longer than the majority of the government members, but I can recall when Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Jim Wilson, Runciman and Harnick were all over on this side of the Legislature. You might find this hard to believe, but I can recall debates when they didn't speak totally about the bill that was before them. Perhaps I'm just taking a lesson from Mike Harris when he sat over on this side. I can remember when he spoke to a bill that had nothing to do with rivers and streams, but Mike Harris tied this Legislature up for hours on end by reading the name of every lake, river and stream in the province. Speaker, I know you at least will be tolerant. I find it hard to believe that members across in the government have not had the same concerns, the same frustration that we've had with the fact that the family support plan offices were closed.

I was elected in December 1993, so I spent about 18 months here before the election in 1995. I can honestly say that the amount of time my constituency office had to deal with family support matters was rather limited. I can honestly say, and prove it by the record of calls, the record of contacts, the records of calls we make from our office, that the amount of time we've had to spend since these family support plan offices have been closed has dramatically increased. There may have been a backlog before. There may have been a backlog back in the mid-1980s relative to the number of cases that were in front of us, but it certainly increased dramatically when these family support plan offices were closed.

It is hard for me to understand why or how members of the government can stand and say there isn't any problem. I don't know what colour the sky is in the world you live in, but it's the same sky in Essex South as it is in Durham, in Mississauga, in Kenora and North Bay. I suspect that their offices are receiving the same calls we are, or there are some significant differences around this province that I'm not aware of.

Yes, this legislation is going in the right direction. It's allowing flexibility. It's allowing parents, if they can agree on the family support and the court sees this as being appropriate, to agree on this, but after this piece of legislation is in effect, it has to be able to be carried out. You have to give the resources in which this and other acts can be followed, and that is all we're asking.

We're asking that you take the concern you have shown in this bill and that you show that same concern with the changes that were made under Bill 82, the changes to the family support plan. As was pointed out before, the family support plan is money from spouses that is paid into a central area and then distributed to the spouse and children who need it.

We encourage you, when you use the word "expedite," that you do the same thing with the family support plan that you've done with this. We had an example today where under the family support plan it allows for the suspension of licences. The family support plan was adopted some months ago, and we understand that there is a very legitimate tool that is not being used yet. I encourage the government to move as quickly as possible, to take related pieces of legislation and put resources behind it so that yes, the backlog can be cleared up and our offices can move on to other business, but more important, that families in this province, spouses who have children, can put food on the table, can pay the rent, can pay the bills they have before them, because that is all any of us really want.

With that, I will reiterate that we support this bill and that I and the members of our caucus intend to vote in favour of it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Kormos: Speaker, I want to indicate to you my appreciation and I think the appreciation of every member of this House of how you've listened carefully to all of the debate with acute attention because you understand, like folks out there do, that this is an incredibly important matter.

I say to the government members, please, if need be, take some leadership from your colleagues like Toni Skarica from Wentworth North and Bill Murdoch from Grey-Owen Sound or even Gary Carr from Oakville South. Show some courage and stand up and speak out, because you know there is a crisis with the family support plan. You know that it fell into total disarray. You've received the phone calls that my friend Mr Crozier referred to. You know that Bill 82 was passed almost 10 months ago and not one cent of arrears has been collected by this government with their 10 tough tools in Bill 82. Stand up and speak out for the people in your constituencies, like Toni Skarica, like Gary Carr, like Billy Murdoch. By God, they may not be as popular as some of you are in the Premier's office, but they're popular in their ridings and in their constituencies. Their constituents -- the people in Wentworth North and the people in Oakville South and the people in Grey-Owen Sound -- know that whether or not they always agree with their members -- Toni Skarica, Bill Murdoch or Gary Carr -- they've got members who have the courage of their convictions. They know they have members who aren't prepared to just stand here and read the line coming out of the Premier's office, the trite and oftentimes so unexciting speeches that are written for them by the spin doctors. Have courage my friends and take their leadership.

1730

Mr O'Toole: It's a privilege to respond to the member for Essex South. I would agree he's made a number of points which I would attempt to share with the viewers today and those who are listening in the House.

He was making reference to the Family Responsibility Office and he would know that our Bill 82 strengthened the functions and collection aspect of it. I want to talk about some of the differences: The old family support office had 90 enforcement officers; we've moved that to 139. People are receiving money quicker and faster. There were 24 phone lines handling only 6% of the 50,000 calls every day. We've now got 65 phone lines and we're able to handle 3,000 calls per day. Total disbursements per week between January and July 1996 were about $220 million. That had increased some 6% or 7% between January and July 1997, to $223 million.

I think most striking, though, is that in the old family support office the slow response caused 90,000 pieces of backlogged correspondence. Think about it, those were 90,000 inquiries looking into getting the money into the hands of those in need. We've cleared the backlog now, which means there are only 38,000 pieces of mail. We're working hard to solve it and we'll only be happy when there's zero backlog.

The issue here really is to streamline the process for the family and for those who are in need. If you look at the start of this process, we've had over 9,000 inquiries with the hotline. That's 1-800-980-4962. I'd encourage those people to call that. There are information sessions that are starting in October in 43 communities.

I want to conclude by saying the system will be faster and fairer for family support. In conclusion, we believe kids come first.

Mr Miclash: It's always a privilege to rise and comment on some of the comments made by the member for Essex South. But before I do that, I must comment on the previous speaker, the member for Durham East, who at one time indicated to his press that it was tough for him to go home to face the comments that were being made by the Harris government. It was hard to handle the negativism that was coming back regarding the tax cut which this government continues to go forth and implement.

The member for Essex South brought up a very interesting comment when he talked about the resources that are needed to implement a lot of the plans that are put forth by any government. It reminded me of going back home and listening to some of the front-line workers. I'm talking about front-line workers who work for Comsoc. I'm talking about front-line workers who work for Natural Resources. I'm talking about board members, whether it be a board member for a hospital or a board member for a school board. They're also saying, "Yes, we hear about all these resources. We hear the Minister of Community and Social Services say there's all kinds of money out there for autistic children, there's all kinds of money out there for different programs."

I go back and talk to the front-line workers and they say: "We don't know about this resource. Where is it?" The member for Essex South is very correct in suggesting that the resources have to flow in order for these programs to actually get to the people who need them. Again, it doesn't matter how many announcements you make.

The member for Durham East can get up and talk about these wonderful program, but if the dollars don't flow, folks, the programs don't work, the children don't come first, they're not benefited. For you to stand here today and keep telling me that in terms of your government children come first, and for me to return home and find out that that's not the case -- I can tell you what it is, but I can't say it in this House or I'll get thrown out.

Mr Len Wood: I just want to congratulate the member for Essex South. He was right on topic when dealing with Bill 128. It's intended to make uniformity between the federal legislation and the provincial legislation and make sure that the dollars flow from spouses to the children and that child support will have priority over spousal support.

If we look back at the mess that this government has made as a result of shutting down a number of offices last January and laying off hundreds of workers in that ministry -- and it's not only that ministry. It's every other ministry where they've laid off, whether it's environment, natural resources or agriculture. In all the other ministries they've laid off thousands of workers across this province and they've created nothing but a mess.

I tour the province as well and I go into some of the Conservative ridings. I know that when they go home on the weekends, after about an hour out in the community the Conservative members have no choice but to retreat into the basement and take on a bunker mentality. They are being harassed something terrible for the sins of Mike Harris and the Minister of Labour and the mess that the Attorney General have made in this province.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): With a $100-billion debt --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order.

Mr Len Wood: We know some of the concerns with which they are trying to defend themselves in this Legislature but they can't defend themselves when they go home to their own ridings because they're telling them that their term of office is finished. They're gone. They're only into two and a half years and they're never going to be able to clean up the mess they've created

They're looking at alternatives. I'm sure that as we get into the campaign for the next election they will be looking at Howard Hampton and the NDP to form the next government in Ontario. I'm looking forward to that as well because I know it can happen. We had good government for five years and we've got a mess now that it's going to take a long time to clean up.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I just want to remind members it's 25 to 6. I realize hunger pains may be setting in. Control yourselves. You may not agree with what you hear from other members, but it's my job to make sure that they say it.

The Chair recognizes the member for Essex South.

Mr Crozier: I agree with almost everything that my friend from Cochrane North said, but not totally, and my friends from Welland-Thorold, Kenora and Durham East. Like my friend from Kenora, it was the comments of my friend from Durham East that interested me the most.

I agree that Bill 82 strengthened and gave tools to collect from those bad dads, for the most part, who are not paying their family support. The problem is that you haven't used the tools yet. That's what we're trying to tell you. You've got to use the tools. They're no good in the box, so get them out of the box.

He also mentioned some interesting statistics, not the least of which are the telephone lines you have. You've obviously forgotten your colleague from Grey-Owen Sound who had a private member's resolution that wanted to get rid of these telephone answering systems -- voice mail. Why would the ministry have to supply us members with a specific private number to call about family support issues if it wasn't for the fact that you can't get through on the lines that you already have? What I guess we should do is give out 3,000 private numbers a day because this is what folks are telling you. They can't get through. They can't get satisfaction. The system is all bound up. Even if you get somebody to talk you, they can't give you an answer. All they want are the funds that are due to them.

You can give all kinds of tools, but if you don't use the tools they aren't worth the box they're in.

1740

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further debate?

Mr Bisson: I would like to take this opportunity in debate on Bill 128 to use a specific example of something that's actually happening to a constituent of mine in my riding. I have his signed letter here, but I'm reluctant to use his name because I don't have his permission to utilize his name in full, so we'll just call this person Roger for this particular case.

Let's be clear what the government is doing here. The federal government has enacted legislation that reforms the Divorce Act to require child support under the act to be determined according to child support guidelines which are prescribed by regulation. Those regulations are to be guided by a couple of points. In other words, if you go to divorce court and there is to be a support payment awarded by the court, the court has to follow guidelines under the federal regulations.

The child support guidelines consist of three major elements. The first is a table setting out the amount of child support to be awarded according to the pair's income and the number of children. So the court says, "All right, what does the meat chart say? According to how many kids you have and how much money you make, how much you should pay in support?" Then there are rules permitting an amount of child support other than in the table to be ordered and the procedure for obtaining income information and determining the amount.

The point here is that new guidelines the federal government established say: "We've got a meat chart. You make X dollars, you have X number of kids, you will pay Y amount of child support." It doesn't in my view take into consideration certain things that cause a problem. Let me give you this particular case, to be quite specific.

The provincial government in this case, under Bill 128, is bringing legislation that will mirror what the federal government is doing by statute. In other words, the federal government says, "We'll have these guidelines." The province says, "We're rubber-stamping the federal government's legislation and we will enact the very same rules in Ontario." There's a rationale for that, but I think the government has to take a look at some of the applications of this law as it applies to very special circumstances. I want to give you this particular one.

I have a constituent who writes this letter about a fictitious father. It talks about a father of three who got divorced back in 1982. He and his wife did not get along. They went through a divorce. At the time the divorce happened, the father made $30,000 per year. They eventually went to divorce court. The award was settled at $100 per month per child, for a total of $300. Time goes by. This particular individual remarries and has two children of his own in his second marriage. The wife remarries and goes on with her life with her new husband.

As time goes by, what happens is that the husband, who is now remarried, goes out and buys a car, like everybody else would like to be able to -- nothing extravagant. He buys a house, has mortgage payments. Everything is based on what he accepted as the settlement for separation when he went to the divorce court with his former wife, that he would pay $300 per month. He expected that at one point the money would go up, but that the amount it would go up would be in relation to the income he had.

Unfortunately, what happens is his ex-wife's new husband dies in a car accident, so she's forced to go on social assistance to support herself. When she goes to social assistance, the new guidelines for the provincial government are that the social assistance people say, "Make sure that all arrears are paid and make sure the ex-husband is paying the full amount under the current law when it comes to support payments." The social assistance office tells the wife: "You need to take your ex-husband back to court, because since 1982 there have been new federal guidelines established and you will be able to get more money. We're telling you, you have to take this person to court." So this fellow now is taken back to court and his support payment is increased by some 300%.

The point the individual makes is that he accepts that he has to pay support. He accepts that he has a financial and moral responsibility when it comes to the children. But he's saying, "Is it fair for me and my new family that at this point I have to pay 300% extra over what I was paying before without any ability to take a look at if I can afford to pay?" When you work out the math in this particular individual's case, the total amount of money that he pays, he has nothing extravagant: a car payment, a mortgage payment and basically just the bills to keep the household going. No family vacations, no three-wheel vehicles, no snow machine, no Ski-Doos, nothing like that, just basic living.

When he takes into account his income of today against what the courts have awarded, he is not able to make that extra 300% payment the court has awarded. So he says, "The legislation is supposed to account for special circumstances." Under the federal legislation, they're saying there are guidelines that take into account special circumstances.

This particular individual is saying: "I accept that I have to pay the original amount. I also accept that I'm going to pay additional amounts because my ex-wife's circumstances have changed. But to increase that support payment by 300% over what it was before, that puts me in a position where I'm not able to make ends meet."

There should be some provision within the law where the courts and judges making these decisions are able to take a look at special circumstances, not just look at the meat chart and say, "You make X amount of money, you have X amount of children and I don't take into account anything else and I award X amount of dollars."

There should be some common sense used to say: "Yes, that's what the guidelines say, but in this particular case at this time this individual can't pay a 300% increase. We will therefore award X amount for a period of a year or two until financial circumstances change for one or the other," and a readjustment is then made on the ability to pay.

The fellow says, "I don't want to stop paying child support. In fact, I want to take my responsibilities, but don't bankrupt me, because the social assistance people are saying this has to be done" -- so the province can get off the hook in paying the family benefits to his ex-wife.

This is what I'm asking the government to do: When this particular bill goes to committee, I think you need to take a look at the special provisions guidelines to ensure that the courts have some latitude in looking at how the award is given. If the person has the ability to pay, they should pay the full amount. There's no argument there. This individual says, "If I have the money, I'm prepared to pay. But in a case where I don't have the money at this time because of circumstances" -- it's unfortunate that his ex-wife's husband died in a car accident, but why is he made to pay? The point he's making is that you have to have special provision in the legislation to enable the courts to look at the ability to pay in a proper way.

The second thing he's saying is that the provisions of these guidelines as applied put his current family in jeopardy. He now has to work overtime, has to work on the side, has to do everything he can to make extra dollars to be able to afford the 300% increase in his child support payment. He says: "This is putting stress on my current family. My new wife and I are arguing because now I'm not at home all the time. I come home, I'm dog-tired, I've got to go back to work again and it's putting stress on my current family."

In the long run, as a society, we're not going to be better off if we end up in a situation where for whatever reason they end up getting separated because of the stress that is put on through this.

I'm asking the government, by way of this legislation, by way of Bill 128, to hear the pleas of Roger and try to put into this legislation special consideration for the ability to pay. No husband, no father should have the ability not to pay his family support. They have to take the responsibility, but it's got to be done within the context of ability to pay. As financial circumstances change, if the person is able to pay more at a later date, the courts can deal with it at that time, that as the person's income increases and expenses come down, the person's support payments are adjusted until the point where you get to the maximum amount.

I'd like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the ability to speak to this particular bill. I would ask the government to take these comments from Roger seriously and take a look at how you can put in special provisions so that you can deal with ability to pay when it comes to support order payments.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Parker: Let me congratulate the member for Cochrane South for being the first opposition member in this debate to focus his remarks on the subject matter of the bill before us, which is Bill 128, An Act to amend the Family Law Act to provide for child support guidelines.

The member comments on the difficulties that are presented when there is a change in circumstances. We are aware of the difficulty that is created under those circumstances.

1750

That difficulty exists at present, and when there is a change in circumstances, that provides for a reapplication to the court for a change in the court order or for a change to the agreement. Those provisions will not change as a result of Bill 128, but what will change is that the subject matter of the court application will flow much more smoothly and much more readily than it does at present. Right now one of the most painful, agonizing and frankly expensive aspects of matrimonial litigation is not the break-up of the marriage itself -- that's usually the one part that the parties agree to, and is dealt with fairly simply -- but it's dealing with matters of children that is painful to all the parties, devastating to the children themselves and time-consuming and expensive in the process.

Bill 128 will bring the provincial law into conformity with the federal divorce law and provide for some uniformity and predictability in the resolution of those disputes having to do with child support. What it will mean is that there will be fewer people who have to go to court to battle these things out, because they will be guided towards arriving at a resolution out of court far more readily than they ever have in the past.

Who likes this? Well, one person is Carole Curtis, a Toronto lawyer: "It is important that the province have the same law as the federal law --

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I also want to compliment the member for Cochrane South for his remarks, short as they were, only 10 minutes as we're now into that segment of debate, and certainly support his call for some amendments, which would be very positive and should be listened to, I hope, by the government members.

I want to use my time just to speak on behalf of the literally hundreds of constituents who have come to my office particularly in the last year and a half who have not been treated at all well by the system, by a government that basically put forward a bill, closed down regional offices of the family support plan and continues to talk as if the system is working better, when we know, those of us who are dealing with these people on a daily basis, the system is not working.

People still cannot get through. People are still not receiving the support they are supposed to be receiving. So we have women and children in this province, and certainly in Thunder Bay that is the case, who are still well behind in the payments not because the money isn't there but because the money is locked into the system under the new Family Responsibility Office.

It is extraordinarily important to note that despite what the government members will continually say as they trot out their statistics, the fact is that the people in my riding and in Thunder Bay, and I think all across Ontario are being treated in a manner that is nothing less than insulting, and it's extremely frustrating for them. They come to us and in many ways we become their office, we become the place they can go to, because at least we apparently have some good contact with the office. But the contact even from our point of view can be very difficult.

I want to speak on behalf of those people who still come into our office, still look for help, have not been well served by the family responsibility changes. We know that a lot of the issues in terms of Bill 128 could be dealt with very handily by the regional offices as they were set up, and I still wish that was in place.

Mr Lessard: My colleague from Cochrane South brings up an interesting situation of a client in his own riding with respect to what sorts of problems can happen, and it's an unusual situation, certainly. That's a case where a support order was made 15 years ago and these parties entered into an agreement based on the situation at that time. Both parties went their own way and got remarried, but because of an unfortunate death of one of the former spouses they were able to go back to court and have this variation made.

Nobody knows how this legislation is going to be interpreted. That was interpreted according to the federal guidelines that were introduced in May, as I understand the story. This person did what he was supposed to do. He went to court and it was interpreted, as I understand it, and they didn't take into consideration the special circumstances the way he felt they should be.

But it really brings up something else, and that is that there are going to be a great many people who are going to make applications for variations to their support orders, either upwards or downwards. What we've found with this government in other decisions they've made and other programs they've implemented is that they've moved too far too fast and they've brought in things without having any consideration of the impact they're going to have.

They haven't put in place the systems necessary to try to deal with this huge increase in variation applications that are going to be brought. With cuts to the legal aid plan, there is going to be reduced access for women to bring applications to vary their support upward. Their enforcement mechanisms aren't working. They closed the regional offices without knowing what the impact was going to be. They've created a mess.

Mr Flaherty: I listened with interest to the speech of the member for Cochrane South and the recent comments by the member for Windsor-Riverside with respect to going too far too fast. My goodness, here we are trying to put through legislation for guidelines for the support of single mothers and children in Ontario and he says we're going too fast and too far. It seems to me we should expedite this as quickly as possible in the interests of those who suffer from marriage breakdown and their children in Ontario. I'm surprised the honourable member would indicate that this ought to be done slowly as opposed to as quickly as possible, but that's his view.

This policy, this bill, is designed to make support orders more consistent and more predictable in the province. Presently, as the member for York East indicated, we have a significant delay and significant expense caused by the fact that there are no guidelines, there are no references that people can have access to in order to make their own assessment of where they're likely to fall in terms of support for themselves and their children in cases of marriage breakdown.

This is consistent with the civil justice reforms the Attorney General has initiated with respect to mandatory mediation in civil matters, with respect to case management in civil matters, all designed, again, to increase consistency, predictability, reduce delay and thereby reduce expense.

Also we have the Agency Reform Commission, which is chaired by my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, again designed to reduce the number of commissions in Ontario, to reduce delay and to reduce expense in cases dealing with administrative tribunals; we have many in the province, soon to be fewer.

I urge all members to put kids first and get this legislation passed as quickly as possible in the interests of the families of Ontario.

The Speaker: Responses?

Mr Bisson: In the two minutes I have left, I want to make the point to the government that when you go through looking at this bill at the committee level and you deal with it when it comes to dealing with amendments, you need to take a look at the question of special provisions.

This is but one case, the case of Roger in my constituency. Through no fault of his own or his ex-wife, the situation has changed. The wife has been forced to go back, because she has gone on FSP, to the courts to get the former amount of support payments changed and because of these new federal guidelines he's being asked to pay a 300% increase in his support payments. He is saying he's prepared to pay, he's prepared to pay the maximum based on how much he's making and how much he's able to pay.

The courts have to be able to deal with that in a progressive way, to turn around and say, "One, yes, I will pay; number two, look at my income, look at my circumstances when it comes to my debts." The courts have to deal with debts in a real way, not allowing people to load a bunch of debt on to themselves so that they don't make their payments, but to take a look in a progressive way at how we can deal with this so we don't put the second family in jeopardy when it comes to their ability to make payment to that first particular support payment.

I would like to thank the members opposite for my being able to have made these comments. I hope the government, in looking at these amendments, deals with Roger's concern in an effective way so that the courts are able to deal with this when it comes to special provisions. I also believe there isn't a quorum in the House.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: It now being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.

The House adjourned at 1801.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

September 24, 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLASS SIZE

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

JULIE BROOKS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

CANCER PREVENTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

SENIORS SEMINAR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

HOME CARE

EDUCATION REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARDS

CROSS-BORDER TRAVEL / VOYAGES TRANSFRONTALIERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

HOME CARE

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

CHILD CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

PAY EQUITY

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND

LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

NURSING STAFF

WATER CHLORINATION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNIFORM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'HARMONISATION DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES FÉDÉRALES ET PROVINCIALES SUR LES ALIMENTS POUR LES ENFANTS