Journal des débats 1995-oct-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I rise to seek the consent of the House to rearrange the routine proceedings for today only. This will have the House consider oral question period now, after which will follow members' statements, followed by the remainder of routine proceedings in their proper order.

I would ask the consent of the House that if there are any recorded divisions today on the conclusion of the throne speech debate, those divisions be deferred until Monday next, immediately following routine proceedings and before orders of the day, with the previously agreed upon division bells limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I also seek unanimous consent of the House for a few moments to express our sympathy to the Eves family.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

JUSTIN EVES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Quite clearly at a moment like this words are absolutely inadequate to express what we're all feeling, but all the members of my caucus wanted to join in expressing our sincere sympathy to Ernie Eves and to the members of his family in the tragic loss of their son and brother.

I think each of us who is a parent can only begin to imagine the kind of anguish that the family is experiencing, but we did want them to know today that they are in the thoughts and prayers of all of us here in this Legislature.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'm sure that all of us have an extraordinary sense of sadness and loss. The member for Parry Sound, Ernie Eves, is a good friend to a great many of us in this House. He's certainly been a good friend of mine over the years, and when I had the chance to speak to him on Saturday, I simply expressed a very few inadequate words which I would share with the House.

All of us have, at different times in our lives, experienced great sadness and great loss, and we know that life sometimes has a way of breaking our hearts. This is what's happened to Ernie and to Vicki and to Natalie in their loss of Justin. We can only hope that the passage of time and the reaching out by all of us, and indeed by thousands of people across the province, as well as the support of close friends and family, will help Ernie and all the members of his family get through this very difficult moment. We share our thoughts and prayers with the Eves family on this occasion.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me thank the leaders of both of the parties who have expressed sentiments.

This is a very difficult time for the Eves family, a difficult time for those of us who are close to the Eves family, and I think the leader of the New Democratic Party is quite correct that he is a very good friend and colleague to all who know him in the Legislature.

This kind of tragedy hits us all from time to time, directly or indirectly, family or friends, but when it happens very close there's some strength that comes from somewhere. I happen to believe it comes from God, others will believe that it comes from another source, but it comes. As I met with the family yesterday, there was a strength there; I don't understand how it comes. Mr Eves expressed to all of you who have sent well wishes, who have called, who have offered support, their thanks.

I thought it would be appropriate that I say a few words about Justin. As difficult as this is for me, it would be more difficult for his father and I think it's something we want to know.

This young man, at age 23, was a loving son. He was somebody who cared very much about people -- about his friends, his relatives, his family, his community. He overcame adversity, a learning disability, with the help of friends and the support of family. He was able to attend Boston College, which has one of the best programs in North America for children with learning disabilities -- dyslexia. He overcame that. He was successful.

While studying in Boston, he still had time to be a Big Brother to two inner-city kids. He was very special to these boys who for a period of time, for four or five months, carried on -- one just a teenager, I believe, one not yet a teenager -- before any adult knew that they were on their own. He continued to help these boys in a Big Brother capacity after having left Boston.

I might add that the federal government assisted in making sure that if they wanted to attend the funeral, they could; these are two boys who don't have birth certificates or passports or travel documents. That gives you some sense of the despairing situation that, because they knew Justin, they've overcome. There are many others, of course, who are still facing those situations.

But this was a small measure of who he was and how special he was, of helping people. He's going to be very much missed, I believe, by those who will never have had the opportunity to know him or meet him. I think that he would have sent ripples through his community because of his very caring and very sharing way.

I say these things today -- I think his parents would want me to -- so that others can pick up and learn from this tragedy, that others can share the spirit of Justin. The family has asked and friends have asked to not send flowers, to set up a trust fund in Justin's name to help children with learning disabilities. I think this is a worthwhile cause and it will be one way that he can be remembered.

His mother asked me to pass on to all of us and to all the people we know that while nobody will know for sure whether, if Justin had worn his seatbelt, he'd still be with us or not -- two of the three in the car wore their seatbelts and are walking around today; Justin did not and he is not -- his mother somehow or other found the courage to tell me to make sure I had my seatbelt on all the time and to pass that one message on to you and to everybody I had a chance to talk to.

The family extends their deep thanks and their appreciation, and on behalf of my caucus and our party I want to indicate publicly how saddened we all are. I'm just astounded at the strength of this family. Even yesterday they were talking about lessons that could be learned, and that would be the best way we could pay our respects to Justin.

1340

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As I rise I recognize the fact that it is somewhat difficult for us all to move into the routine proceedings of the House today. Nevertheless I do have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I want to note that last week the minister indicated he would fix one of the promises which had been broken and would make sure that people who are on social assistance and have had their welfare benefits reduced will be able to earn back the full amount of their welfare benefits before their income is clawed back. We'll look forward to the details of how he's going to correct that.

But today I want to ask the minister about another broken promise. It states categorically in the Common Sense Revolution that the government will not cut support for seniors and the disabled. It specifically states in the throne speech that "...welfare benefits for seniors, persons with disabilities and their families have not been reduced."

Yet in fact, according to the government's own figures, more than 17,000 seniors and disabled people on general welfare assistance did have their benefits cut last month. It's clear, and I say to this minister, you're in such a hurry to make the cuts you have to make that you're quite willing to overlook yet another promise. Will you acknowledge today that even as the throne speech said that welfare benefits for seniors and the disabled had not been reduced, you were cutting the welfare benefits of some 17,000 seniors and disabled in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): This government appreciates the importance of this issue and this is why the government has taken the time to examine all the options before taking action. We remain committed to moving seniors and the disabled off the welfare system. They don't belong there. We are going to set up an income supplement program that's better designed to meet their needs.

Mrs McLeod: The question was, is it not so that 17,000 seniors and disabled had their welfare benefits reduced this month in direct violation of the statement in the throne speech that those benefits were not being cut? We know in fact that has happened. We wanted the minister to acknowledge the violation of the statement that was made in the throne speech.

We also know how much the government is saving by cutting the benefits of seniors and disabled who are on welfare assistance. It amounts to what I think is a rather staggering figure; it amounts to some $10 million a month. The waiting time for moving people from welfare assistance to family benefits so that they would not be still experiencing the reduced income is getting longer and longer. It's anywhere from eight to nine months. We've even heard of cases which go back a matter of over a year. So more than 17,000 seniors and disabled people have had their benefits cut, waiting to be able to restore their income, and in the meantime the ministry is saving $10 million a month.

Minister, will you confirm at least that you are indeed saving $10 million a month on the backs of seniors and the disabled?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: During this transition period we are committed to protecting the system for people who are truly disabled and for seniors. We also need a clearer vision as to who these people are and we're reviewing this. At this time, no decisions have been made, but I might add that we have allocated more resources in order to process people.

Mrs McLeod: It's interesting that the minister notes a transitional period, because we've all come to have some real questions about what kind of transition he and his government in fact are looking at. We don't see the protection for seniors and disabled in the interim period because we know that the welfare benefits have been cut. We were shocked to learn, and the minister has mentioned it again today, that they're looking at determining who are the disabled who should be qualifying for family benefits. We ask, Minister, how many more millions of dollars are you planning to save on the backs of the disabled by coming up with some new definition? How far are you prepared to go in making the disabled of this province pay for your Premier's income-tax-cut promise?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to reconfirm this system must be protected for the disabled and the seniors. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. Frankly, we talk about compassion: Is it compassionate to let the status quo continue when obviously if that status quo does continue there won't be anything left for people who are truly vulnerable in this province?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is also to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it concerns the impact of your cutbacks on the disabled. Last week, in response to a question regarding the redefinition of "disability," you stated: "You have to define `disability.' We've clearly gone to a medical definition of `disability,' and unfortunately that's what the catchment is going to be."

According to ministry figures, there are currently more than 144,000 disabled people who receive the disability allowance. Officials in your ministry say that under your definition 115,000 disabled people and their families will become ineligible for this allowance. That would mean that 80% of the people who now receive disability allowance in Ontario will become ineligible. These disabled people and their families would then be pushed on to general welfare assistance, which means their benefits would be cut by approximately 40%.

Can the minister confirm that it is planned to change the definition of "disability" under the act and in the process eliminate disability allowance for approximately 115,000 disabled people in Ontario who now receive this assistance?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This question is very similar to the one that was just posed to me by the leader of the official opposition. I must say once again that we do need a clearer vision of the people who are disabled. We're reviewing that right now, and no decisions have been made.

Mr Agostino: I think the minister's own words in the House last week gave us the real answer, that you're moving to define a strict definition of "medical disability"; you're planning to break your promise and slash benefits to the disabled and their families by approximately 40%.

In dollars and cents, under your changes, a disabled individual would lose $410 a month from the benefits they're now receiving. A disabled person with a spouse and one child would lose $552 per month. In total, under your definition that you spoke of last week, you'll remove 115,000 disabled people and their families from the allowance. The province and your government would save $787 million a year on the backs of the disabled and the most vulnerable in this province with your proposed redefinition and change.

Will the minister confirm finally now that he is breaking his commitment to protect the disabled in this province and also confirm that as a result of the changes there would be a savings of $787 million by eliminating the disability allowance from the 115,000 people who now qualify?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I find it very interesting that the honourable member is talking about a definition that, as I just stated a couple of seconds ago, no decisions have been made on in terms of what the definition is going to be composed of.

I will once again confirm that we are committed to protecting the system for the disabled, that, once again, we have to truly protect the system for the truly disabled, and that's really what we have to do to fix the system.

Mr Agostino: It's becoming more difficult to try to understand the philosophy and where this government's coming from in this issue. I go back to what you said last week, Mr Minister: "We've clearly gone to a medical definition of `disability,' and unfortunately that's what the catchment is going to be." They were your words last week, Minister, not mine. You have gone to a medical definition of "disability" and that is what the catchment is going to be. That's what you told the House.

1350

You are now trying to justify a betrayal of your party's commitment and your Premier's commitment not to reduce funding for the disabled. By your move you're significantly going to reduce the funding by approximately 40%, you're going to save $787 million a year and you're going to make 115,000 disabled people ineligible. That to me is a clear betrayal of your commitment, and what you're simply doing is saying, "Well, we're not really betraying them, we're moving them somewhere else," where you were going to reduce their benefits by 40%.

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. Minister, will you give us your definition of "disabled," and when is a person sufficiently disabled to receive disability benefits in the province of Ontario under your ministry guidelines?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I must agree, that is a good question. That's the same one that was just asked of me two seconds ago. Clearly, as we've said, we're looking for a clearer definition of what disabled is, and clearly I've said as well that we haven't decided on a definition, regardless of what the honourable member would like to attribute. I would like to confirm again that this government has a commitment to protect the most vulnerable in this society, which means the disabled -- the truly disabled.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): To the same minister, if I could have his -- I know he's getting instructions from the Premier, so I'll wait for those instructions to end and then I'll ask the question, if that's all right. I want to make sure I have your undivided attention. When the prompting stops, I'll start.

The Speaker: Proceed with your question, please.

Mr Rae: All right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Could we get the time back, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: I have nothing to do with that. Order. The leader of the third party.

Mr Rae: If the minister will turn to page 10 of the Common Sense Revolution, he will see at the top of page 10 there is a section entitled "Seniors and the Disabled." Describing welfare reform, it says:

"Another important step in welfare reform will be to move 170,000 of our citizens -- seniors and the disabled -- out of the `welfare system' altogether. They should never have been there in the first place.

"We will establish a new and separate income supplement program, specifically for those unable to work." "Specifically for those unable to work." And this is in bold print: "Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels. Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut."

My question for the minister is, how does he square that promise with the statements that are being made with respect to a redefinition of "disability" and to the fact that under the proposal for a redefinition of "disability" people in fact will be moved out of the family benefits program into the general welfare program and will have their benefits cut? How do you square what you promised to do in the Common Sense Revolution with what you are now telling people you're planning to do in redefining "disability," in redefining the problem and in depriving thousands of people of benefits to which they are now legally entitled?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I want to confirm once again that we remain committed to moving the seniors and the disabled off the current welfare system. Seniors and disabled should not be on the welfare system. That's part of what was being asked. Certainly they deserve the dignity of not being there. Secondly, we have committed to create an income supplement program in order to assist them, being off the system.

I must add, let's not forget that the eligibility and the definitions have all been expanded in the prior five years, and I think what we really have to look at is who is truly disabled in this province. That's what our challenge is going to be.

Mr Rae: Let me just say that there's no reference in the Common Sense Revolution to redefining "disability." There's no reference in the Common Sense Revolution to cutting the benefits of people who are now receiving disability payments, no reference to that at all. In fact it says, "Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels." So the clear implication of that is that people will be maintained in their current condition.

I'd like to ask the minister: Will he state categorically, is it the intention of the government to redefine "disability," and can the minister confirm that as a result of this redefinition people will be moved out of the income supplement family benefits program back into the welfare system? Is that what you're planning to do?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to confirm again that we have as our priority in this government the seniors and the disabled.

Since the leader of the third party so likes to quote from the Common Sense Revolution, it also says here, "Improved management techniques, stricter eligibility requirements and fraud reduction will save" the taxpayers money.

Now, the point here is that we have a commitment to make sure that those who are truly vulnerable in this province will be protected, and that means the truly disabled.

Mr Rae: The minister hasn't answered my question, which is a very simple question. I asked him very simply this: Are you planning to redefine "disability," yes or no -- it's a very simple question -- and secondly, as a result of that redefinition, will the number of people who are on family benefits go up or will it go down? Which is it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Earlier on, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that we are committed to protecting the system for people who are truly disabled. But we also said that we need a clearer vision in terms of who the disabled really are, and we're reviewing this. I indicated already to the Leader of the Opposition, also again, that we are reviewing it and no decisions have been made at this time.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bob Rae (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health, following the announcements that were made on Friday: A number of us were I think quite surprised at the extent to which the cuts which were announced on Friday included so much of community health. We clearly understood that while there was going to be restructuring, there were not going to be across-the-board cuts which would affect people in the community.

I want to ask the minister if he can explain why so many community services have been cut: long-term care, the delay in the establishment of planned services, the birthing centres, community mental health, home oxygen, to mention just a few. Can you explain why community health has received such a large portion of the cuts allocated in your ministry?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the member for York South for the question. I just want to make very clear that of the administrative savings that have been found in my ministry there are no cuts, I say to the honourable member, to front-line services.

If you'd like to take the oxygen program, for example, which was erroneously reported one day last week in the Star, and there was a correction done on the weekend, you will note that as of some criteria that were being enforced by the previous NDP government, some $8 million was left in that budget unspent. The other $2 million, for a $10-million saving, we expect to save this year as a result of the enforcement of the NDP's criteria.

Mr Rae: Let me just remind the minister that on page 7 of the Common Sense Revolution, in bold print --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You read that more than anything.

Mr Rae: Well, unless members are arguing across the way that the devil made them do it, I think we have to read from this document because it's the only explanation we have for much of what appears to drive the members opposite.

Mr Stockwell: I just said you read that more than anything.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Rae: They worship at the shrine of their Common Sense Revolution, yet they object when I read from it. I don't quite understand. I would think that they'd want me to read from it.

If the member will turn to page 7 of the CSR, as it's now affectionately called, it says, "Health care: We will not cut health care spending." No ifs, ands or buts, it's in bold print. It's pretty straightforward, not too many qualifications there. "It's far too important" is the next phrase. That's in italics; the printers were working overtime. "And frankly, as we all get older, we are going to need it more and more."

1400

We understand that, and that's why I don't understand -- to repeat the point quite simply -- why the strategy of the government is to continue cutting in capital allocation in community health care and cutting in services in community health care. I'd like to ask the minister to explain to me how it is possible for him to say that no front-line services will be affected when the level of cuts to community care is upwards of $50 million this year.

Hon Mr Wilson: I fully explained to the media and to members of this House that there are no cuts to front-line services in health care, and I would ask the honourable member for York South to read on on page 7 in the Common Sense Revolution which says, "Under this plan, health care spending will be guaranteed," and it is. This is the important part, and it's actually in bold, members should know:

"As government, we will be aggressive about rooting out waste, abuse, health card fraud, mismanagement and duplication.

"Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking will be reinvested in health care to improve services to patients. We call this commonsense approach, `patient-based budgeting.'"

I'm very proud of this document. Our government is very proud of this document, and we are living up to our health care commitments to the people of Ontario.

Mr Rae: Perhaps I could just ask the minister this then: He's saying that somehow they've managed to take out $128 million in funding, to which they've now added even more in the announcements that have been made most recently, including community mental health; the chemical addiction program; birthing centres; long-term care, community-based services, $33 million; delay in the establishment of planned community services, $2 million; reduction in the home oxygen program of $10 million, which is close to $50 million; and a further $16.1 million in capital funding that is necessary to move services into the community.

I'd like to ask the minister, how is the community going to be able to absorb the increased demand for services in the community when you've already indicated to all and sundry that hospital budgets are going to be slashed next year and slashed again the year after? You can't slash both in the community and in the institutions at the same time. It can't be done without breaking the promises you've made and the commitments you've made to seniors, the commitments you've made to people who are sick and who need care at home. They either are going to get it at home or they're going to get it in the hospital. Where are they going to get care once we're done with all these cuts?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again I reiterate to the member for York South that at the time we wrote the Common Sense Revolution, our commitment in the Common Sense Revolution was to seal the health care envelope. We've done that. I think the honourable member will want to agree with us that, unlike previous governments who said they were going to save money in a particular envelope and reinvest it later, they didn't come up with the actual savings.

So we're showing the people of Ontario as we go along where we found administrative savings and we're also making reinvestment announcements in priority areas and setting priorities within the health care envelope. That's our commitment. We'll continue to do that.

With respect to the $33 million that the honourable member talks about in community services, that, you should know, is the fact that I put your multiservice agency bureaucratic red-tape plan on hold. So the $33 million is sitting there. We will reinvest that in long-term care in the communities once we bring out our plan to go forward on long-term-care services in this province.

We did the people of Ontario a favour by cancelling your MSA unionization drive, and I'm proud of that decision by this government.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General, but firstly I want to congratulate him on his re-election and appointment to cabinet. We shared the critic responsibilities in the last Parliament, so I know he'll be very sympathetic to the question I have for him today.

Minister, one year ago yesterday Albert Moses was killed in Toronto by a police officer's bullet. Today family members came to Queen's Park to tell the world that neither the special investigations unit nor Toronto police are able to break a gridlock of silence to tell them exactly how or why Albert Moses was killed. The police officer involved refuses to answer questions, in contravention of the Police Services Act, which requires him to answer SIU questions. Of course, like many before him, the officer cites charter rights against self-incrimination. This impasse has been deadlocking many SIU investigations under the existing protocol and will continue to do so under any protocol that you may install. It definitely requires a judicial interpretation.

My question to you is this: Will you seek a court reference to determine to what extent a police officer's obligation to answer questions under the Police Services Act is reduced or extinguished under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Unless you do that, we're going to continue to be plagued by this gridlock and deadlock, this play between police, public and victims.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The special investigations unit has been a source of difficulty in terms of the way it has operated for some time. As a result, there was a change in the director of that body some time -- I believe it was last March. At that time there was a huge backlog in SIU cases that had not yet been investigated. I'm pleased to report to this House that almost every single case that was tied up in that backlog has now been resolved.

Unfortunately, this case has not yet been resolved. I'm hopeful that the SIU director, Dana Venner, who has successfully -- and is only there, I might add, as a temporary director because she doesn't want to stay in the position indefinitely. She took this on as a special task and has virtually cleaned up the list, and I know that she is continuing to pursue this particular matter and attempting to investigate it to the end.

Mr Chiarelli: We certainly would have appreciated hearing what the minister intends for the SIU, which we didn't hear today. However, in the same case there's another very serious issue which arises.

A year ago blood samples were sent to the government Centre of Forensic Sciences, and almost a year later the same Dana Venner you referred to, the acting director, sent a letter to the chief of police in Toronto stating that even after this year it's going to be quite some time before they obtain the results from the Centre of Forensic Sciences here in Ontario.

You also know, Minister, that it took over two years in the Bernardo case to get DNA results back. In addition, we saw only yesterday that the OPP are claiming that in standard blood samples from accident victims it's taking up to or longer than six months to get these very routine samples back.

Minister, I'd like you to tell the people of Ontario whether you feel that justice is being served with the level of service being given by the Centre of Forensic Sciences in the province of Ontario at the present time.

Hon Mr Harnick: I find the question, while important, rather a strange question since it has absolutely no connection with the question that the member initially asked me. What I will tell the member is that that area of the forensic science labs is not an area under the control of the Attorney General. I am not responsible for that. It is an issue that involves the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and I would suggest that the member ask his question to the Solicitor General at the appropriate time.

1410

CHILDREN'S AID SERVICES

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the cutbacks to the children's aid societies across the province. I'm sure the minister is aware that the Halton CAS has laid off four social workers and the rest of the staff have gone on a four-day workweek, which means an additional 20% cutback, that Frontenac CAS has cut back three and a half social workers, that Durham has had layoffs, that Hastings has laid off four and a half social workers and Thunder Bay 10.

Does the minister not recognize that children's aid societies and the social workers have a statutory obligation to fulfil the Child and Family Services Act and that they have a basic obligation in this province to protect the most vulnerable children in this province, children who are physically and sexually abused? What kind of impact statements have you done and what assurance do you have personally that no child will be put at risk and that every one of the sections of the Child and Family Services Act, in terms of visits and responses to complaints, will be met in this province and that no child will be put at risk?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member for the question, because I strongly believe this is an important issue for us all. That's why this government is protecting services for the children most in need. I might add that we are continuing to fund this area by more than $700 million a year. Incidentally, we're also providing funding for up to 70,000 child care spaces to help families with genuine needs.

Mr Cooke: That doesn't answer the question at all. The fact is that children's aid social workers have an obligation, just as police do in this province, to uphold the law. Your party and your government have said there will be no cutbacks in the justice field. I understand and accept that commitment. But what about those who are empowered under the law to protect children who are being physically and sexually abused? What are you doing to protect those children?

There are all sorts of cutbacks, 5% and 6% in cutbacks. Children's aid societies, if you'd bother to pick up the phone and talk to them, will tell you they are not meeting the requirements under the act. There was even a story in the Globe a couple of weeks of ago from the Halton society, saying they are receiving complaints about the response times to calls about abuse.

What are you going to do to make sure that children who are being abused are protected? They are not being now, because of your cutbacks.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We are protecting programs for our core services for the most vulnerable in our society. We're funding more than $2 billion in terms of social programs to help people in need.

We're bringing our spending under control, or else we're not going to have enough in the future to help those who truly need our assistance. Our government believes that there are efficiencies out there, that we must all do more for less. This government is confident that these agencies and community groups will find more efficient and innovative ways to deliver their services. This government is committed to preserving key services for those most in need.

SELF-REGULATION

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I understand that your ministry is looking at self-regulation for a number of industries. Travel agents in my constituency have contacted me concerning self-regulation of their industry. Can you please tell me if your ministry has made any decisions in this respect?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The travel sector is one of the many businesses regulated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since our government has come to power, we have discovered that there are many things the private sector can do on its own. One of them is to be involved in the regulation of their own industry.

The travel industry has shown a maturity whereby it is now in a position to step into the shoes of some parts of self-management. We have met with them. We have thrown to them various ideas with regard to self-management. We think it's a way to get government out of their hair, and they agree with us. We're going to work actively with them towards self-regulation of this business.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Ottawa Centre is out of order.

Mrs Ross: As a member of the Ontario Real Estate Association, I'm aware of the long-standing interest that that industry has in self-management. Can you please tell me if your ministry supports that movement?

Hon Mr Sterling: The Ontario Real Estate Association has about 45,000 registrations with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations each year, and it has very, very few complaints against this profession. Therefore, there really is not a need for the government to be involved in it to the extent it is at this time.

The real estate industry has been asking for 20 years to be self-regulating. We have again met with this group and we're working very actively towards self-regulation of this very important industry in the province of Ontario. We believe they can do as good a job as us or even better.

EVELYN DODDS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister confirm in this House today that in recent days his government has appointed the defeated Progressive Conservative candidate in Fort William, Mrs Evelyn Dodds, as a full-time member of the Social Assistance Review Board, which position pays upwards of $68,000 a year?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): What I will confirm is this: that the Social Assistance Review Board is in need of many people with great qualifications who will certainly assist the Ministry of Community and Social Services in its mandate to provide services to the most needy.

Mr Conway: In view of the fact that 18 months ago that same Mrs Dodds, in appearing before a standing committee of this Legislature, stated that it was her view that welfare recipients should lose all of their privacy rights -- she said that in a committee of this Legislature just 18 months ago -- in view of that expressed view from your recently appointed Mrs Dodds to the Social Assistance Review Board, what, if any, assurances can you give this House that the very colourful and often extreme Mrs Dodds will discharge her new responsibilities consistent with the law of the land?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm not prepared at this point in time to comment on what someone has or has not said in the past. What I will indicate is that there are some vacancies currently on the Social Assistance Review Board and this government will endeavour to make sure that people who do fill those vacancies are competent and have the best interests of this province at heart.

1420

LAYOFFS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question today is for the Chair of Management Board. I'd like first to offer congratulations to him on his appointment to this very difficult and challenging portfolio.

Last week, Minister, you announced that you were cutting $772 million from the expenditures of this place in order to reach your targets and of course to meet your tax cut. We know from discussions we've had and announcements that have been made that this is just the beginning, that these 1,400 jobs originally and then 13,000 to 20,000 more to come will affect communities like Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton and Toronto in very many major and important ways.

Will the Chair of Management Board please inform the House what analysis he instructed officials to undertake on the economic loss to these communities before making these cuts? Does the Chair of Management Board have any idea of the economic loss to these communities, and where does he expect these people to find work?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question. Having been a mayor of a municipality for a number of years and an alderman back before that for a number of years, I understand the concern with regard to communities about jobs and employment within those communities.

I would say to the member, though, that the rationale for the reductions we have been pursuing is simply because when we took office in June we were informed by the Ministry of Finance that the deficit for the province of Ontario would be $10.6 billion in 1995-96. It was reported to us at $5.8 billion, member for Sault Ste Marie, by your government; in actual fact it was $10.6 billion. The people of the province of Ontario have told us that this is not sustainable, and we pursued a number of courses of action to reduce that deficit to $8.7 billion.

A number of communities will be impacted, there's no question about it, but I say to you that without those reductions, and carrying on with $10-billion deficits year after year after year -- in five years now we've had $10-billion deficits --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you wrap up your answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: -- the impact on those communities across Ontario in five or 10 years from now will be much more severe.

Mr Martin: That's all very nice and the rhetoric plays well, but we in this House know and the people across Ontario know that this government is bent on an ideology, on an ideology that was tried in the United States, that was tried in Britain, and it didn't work.

As a matter of fact, even your own leader, when he was in opposition, asked our Premier not to throw anybody out of work unless you're prepared to understand that we need private sector jobs and opportunities for them at the same time. Mr Minister, where are the jobs?

Hon David Johnson: What we know has not worked for government in the province of Ontario is the tax-and-spend cycle that we've been caught in, the spending between 1985 and 1990, the deficits between 1990 and 1995. The deficit, the debt of the province of Ontario, the lack of confidence in the economy of the province, is costing jobs. The red tape, Bill 40, are costing jobs in the province of Ontario.

My answer to the member for Sault Ste Marie is that to create the jobs in Ontario, we need to get the financial house of the province in order. We need to eliminate the deficit, and that's what we intend to do. Secondly, we need to remove the red tape. That's what we intend to do by eliminating Bill 40 and other measures. Once we have accomplished that, in this term of government, then the jobs will return and prosperity will return to Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Mr Speaker, let me take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker of this House. I know you will serve this office well. Further, I extend my best wishes to all members on their election last June. I look forward to meeting and working with you all as I serve throughout my term.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I was pleased to hear the minister reaffirm the government's commitment to retain the farm tax rebate program under its current status until a proper review of the provincial tax system is complete. This was a true indication to all of the agricultural community that this government is prepared to deliver its fair share of support to the industry.

However, farmers still face many difficult challenges ahead, so I ask the minister today, given that farmers in all commodities have experienced considerable economic hardship and dislocation over the past decade, can the minister indicate to the farmers of Halton North and all the farmers in Ontario that he will continue to liaise with the farm groups as Agriculture and Food positions itself to take advantage of the future?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Speaker, may I also add my congratulations to you, sir. You have represented Simcoe East very well and I know you will give them reason to be very proud of you in the future.

To my colleague from Halton North, I'm pleased that he put that question forth because we've been sitting here for two weeks and the opposition didn't think agriculture was important enough to ask a question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think you would agree with me, being the distinguished individual that you are and having good judgement, that it is improper to impute motives in this House, and I think the suggestion was that the opposition didn't care about the state of agriculture so we weren't asking questions as a result. I know you would agree with me that that's inappropriate.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. You have no point of privilege.

Wrap up your answer, please, Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, I simply made a statement of fact.

As the members will know, I had the opportunity of travelling this province and listening to farmers, and yes, farmers are very concerned about the state of their industry. However, we are coming to a situation where a good crop is coming off with a good price this year. The minister will not dare take credit for that, but that is a fact.

I also want to tell you that about a month ago I signed the document that is rebating 75% of the farm tax to our farmers in 1995.

Mr Chudleigh: I am, on behalf of the agricultural community in Halton North, indeed pleased to hear the minister's response.

My supplementary deals with the minister's attempt to increase communication with the rural community through the recent series of discussions in cross-province tours that concluded at the end of September. The goals of these table talks were not only to include rural Ontario in the decision-making process, but also to develop a prosperous vision of rural Ontario with agribusiness and set ministry priorities for the future. I applaud the minister's initiatives to increase communication with the rural community.

Can the minister share some of the priorities outlined by farm and agricultural groups as a result of these meetings?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We listened to about 1,400 people who on very short notice took time to come and attend our table talks and provide us with input, which we are very much listening to. For example, the common threads are: how important the agrifood business is to all of Ontario; the changing global marketplace; and yes, get the government out of their business. Bills like Bill 91 had no business ever being implemented; we are removing Bill 91. We are changing Bill 163, the Planning Act. That is what agriculture wants. They told us, and we're listening and acting.

1430

JENNY LAVOIE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to be addressed to the Minister of Health, but he's off talking to someone. I'll wait until he returns.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Carry on with your question.

Mr Bartolucci: My question regards the recommendations of the coroner's inquest into the death of Jenny Lavoie, and it's addressed to the Minister of Health.

On August 8, 1993, Jenny Lavoie was in a serious motorcycle accident that eventually claimed her life. After waiting 18 months to obtain a coroner's inquest, the family of Jenny Lavoie learned that a series of events led to her untimely death, including a number of confusing transfers, miscommunication between doctors, and procedures bordering on medical malpractice.

To date, no action has been taken with regard to the recommendations of the inquest. On July 20, 1995, I wrote to the minister's office urging him to act on those 10 recommendations. It has been almost three months and I have had no response. More importantly, the family of Jenny has had no response.

How long do the family of Jenny Lavoie and the people of Sudbury have to wait before your government takes action on the recommendations of the coroner's inquest?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm very much aware of the recommendations from the coroner's inquest, and I do apologize to the honourable member for Sudbury. I did write to the district health council last week and very specifically asked that they include implementation, where possible, of those recommendations in the restructuring discussions that are going on in his community. I apologize for not copying you that letter and I'll be sure to do that today.

Mr Bartolucci: That does not answer my question at all. With all due respect, my question is not about processes or political turf wars which are resulting because of the restructuring. I'm astounded at the minister's response.

After five days of hearing, the coroner's inquest clearly pointed to the shortcomings in the hospital system that may have contributed to Jenny's death. The 10 recommendations of the inquest were not made to add fuel to an ongoing turf war, but were made to save lives.

Is the minister now prepared to ask the Lavoie family and the residents of Sudbury to wait even longer to implement the recommendations of the coroner's request? If not, what does he intend to do as the Minister of Health?

Hon Mr Wilson: I made it very clear to all of the parties involved in Sudbury that I'm not interested in any type of turf war, nor am I interested in politics in health care.

My letter was very straightforward. I think it's probably somewhat unprecedented that a Minister of Health would write in such strong terms to a district health council, which is supposed to be an advisory committee to me as minister. I wrote to them very clearly addressing these issues, and I expect and I am certainly hopeful that they will take the coroner's recommendations into consideration.

After all, we have to respect local autonomy. We have to respect a district health council made up of local people; we have to respect your constituents, who at the end of the day will have responsibility to ensure that the improvements to the hospital system are actually implemented at the grass-roots level.

So I will be sure to, by the end of today, make sure you receive a copy of that letter, and we'll work together to make sure the system improves in Sudbury.

PROJECT FIRST STEP

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, I want to ask you a question regarding a successful program in Hamilton called Project First Step. I hope the minister would know that this is a program that helps over 65 single moms every year through a 10-week session that assists them in getting off of social assistance and back into the workplace or back into school. The minister will know that there's an 80% success rate, and with a budget of only $140,000 a year, this would seem to be exactly the kind of program the government ought to be supporting rather than eliminating.

Will the minister please tell the House today why you're cutting such a successful program that would appear to do exactly what needs to be done and in fact what you promised to do during the campaign, and that's help people get off social assistance? Will you, Minister, tell us why you're taking this step?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member for his introduction of this particular program, Project First Step. It is true, it's to assist single mothers to enter or re-enter the workforce. I agree wholeheartedly that it is an excellent program.

I guess I might have spoiled your supplemental question here, but my indication right now, today in the House, is that this project will continue to be funded. We will continue to fund this.

Mr Christopherson: It doesn't spoil my supplementary. What's more important is the program that we believe you were spoiling in Hamilton. If that's correct, then of course it goes against all the information that's already out there. But I don't care about that. What I'd like to do then, Minister, is follow up very directly. Are you saying today that you will continue to fund this program without any time frame, that you will continue to support this program in Hamilton to the same amount that they've been receiving previously so they can continue to help women get back into the workplace? Minister, is that the precise commitment you're making today?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There's something I can confirm; there's something I can't confirm. First of all, the difficulty we've had with programs in the past, with any social assistance, is there's been no end dates to these. I'm not saying there is an end date to this. However, the commitment is that we will continue to fund this program and it'll be at the same amount as it has been in the past.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week the minister indicated to the member for Grey-Owen Sound that he would be granting more power to the municipalities through changes to the Planning Act. I would ask the minister today if he would be considering giving further power to the municipalities through a new Municipal Act.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. If there's one message that the municipalities have been giving me in the short time we've been in office, it is that they want a new Municipal Act. It's the intention of this government to get off the backs of the municipalities in the province of Ontario, so I can assure you that we will be bringing in a new Municipal Act.

Mr Jordan: I wonder if the minister would tell this House the approximate date that this new act would come into effect.

Hon Mr Leach: The staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing are working on looking at the act at the present time, seeing what has to be amended and revised, and I can tell the honourable member that we will have the act in this House within 12 months.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. A cornerstone, as we all know, of your campaign promise was that you were going to commit to a 30% reduction in personal income tax. You've now had a chance to look at the books and to get the full state of the finances and the economy for Ontario. I wonder if the Premier today would indicate to the House whether that 30% cut in personal income tax over the next three years continues to be the government's commitment.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the opportunity to respond and I think it's an important thing that we understand it. It's a reflection too of an earlier question that, as the public sector is downsized, as we move to balance the budget -- which I think all parties in this Legislature agree needs to be done -- we need to grow the private sector. We need more jobs, we need an uptake in investment and in growth in jobs in the private sector. Clearly, the private sector today, more so than any other time in our history, has various choices of where it's going to invest, where it's going to create jobs -- other provinces, other states, other countries, other jurisdictions.

Being tax competitive, being regulatory competitive, are key to those. For example, investment firm Wood Gundy says this: "Tax cuts, not just lower interest rates, are now desperately needed to reverse what has been an unprecedented collapse in consumer spending in Canada." A major investment firm -- this is what they are saying. "In the absence of purchasing power gains" -- these are private sector purchasing power gains -- "continued efforts by the Bank of Canada to broaden the expansion in consumer spending are going to prove negligible." So, while lower interest rates are important, while getting the deficit under control is important, clearly what we are seeing is that if we are going to get jobs and growth, we need a rise in consumer confidence. We need people buying houses, buying cars, buying fridges, buying furniture, and they are not going to get that if they feel that it is the goal of government to take every single last nickel out of their pockets, as has been the case for the last 10 years. Therefore, we remain committed to job-creating tax cuts so that consumers in the province of Ontario can begin to lead the recovery in a job creation way.

1440

Mr Phillips: I take it from the answer that the commitment remains.

The second part of it, then, is that you have indicated, Premier, that the finances of the province are far worse than you had thought coming into office, that the economy is weaker than you had thought. You had said during the election campaign that you were going to cut $6 billion from the expenditures. Since then, you have indicated that it's going to be far higher. The reason for the question is simple. You're going to balance the budget. You're going to implement your tax cut. By definition, you're going to have to cut substantially more than you had said during the election campaign.

Will you indicate to the House today the size of that? It's not going to be $6 billion. You, I gather, have said publicly it could be as much as $9 billion. Can you indicate how big the cut is going to have to be and where you anticipate the additional whatever it is -- $3 billion -- in cuts is to come from?

Hon Mr Harris: Clearly we have a problem, and it is more serious than was stated and was out publicly when we put forward our platform, or even when your party put forward the famous balanced budget a year earlier than us, the red book.

It is very difficult to know what growth will be three years from now, four years from now -- growth in the North American economy, interest rates, a number of these areas. We have indicated that $6 billion in reductions are what we believe is necessary to balance our books. I want to say this: We believe that $6 billion is necessary with or without tax cuts. We believe the tax cuts will create more jobs, more taxpayers, more growth and investment in this province, and they will pay huge dividends, not only for more people working but for the treasury of the province of Ontario.

Will it be in excess of $6 billion? We don't know that. I said I have no way of knowing two years, three years, four years, five years down the road. It could be $9 billion if in fact there is a recession, if the North American economy does this. Everybody gives me all the ifs, if all these things happen -- if there is an earthquake, if there is calamity, if there is collapse, if these things happen.

What we do know is this: We believe $6 billion in spending cuts are necessary to balance the budget whether there are tax cuts or not. Secondly, we believe tax cuts are required to give us the jobs that we need and the growth that we need and the prosperity that we need and the change in direction from the disaster of the last decade that everybody is looking for.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for oral questions has expired. We'll revert back now to statements.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HURRICANE RELIEF

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As you know, Mr Speaker, the islands of St Kitts, Nevis, Antigua, Barbuda and other islands in the Caribbean were subjected to the natural fury of Hurricanes Luis and Marilyn. It caused unimaginable destruction, devastating the tiny islands and their residents.

Hospitals were destroyed, schools were flattened and the battering wind and rain decimated an already fragile infrastructure. The storm crippled the power utilities, leaving the electrical system in chaos.

At the request of the Right Honourable Dr Denzel Douglas, Prime Minister of St Kitts and Nevis, and with the assistance of Dr Knolly Hill, an Antiguan living in Toronto, I went down and inspected the damage and provided assistance where it was needed. Special recognition must go to Eli Lilly pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Med-Chem Laboratories of Scarborough for their quick response in the generous donation of medical supplies to aid the sick and injured.

Those of us who would like to donate or assist in the rebuilding may do so by contacting the consul general for Antigua and Barbuda, Ms Madeline Blackman, in Toronto. It is also possible to contact the High Commission of Eastern Caribbean States through the high commissioner.

The prime ministers of both countries have asked me to appeal for any assistance and support that the province may wish to offer. I will also be approaching the Premier, the Honourable Mike Harris, to use his good offices in soliciting support to assist in the restoration effort.

I appeal to all Ontarians to lend assistance in whatever form possible to aid the unfortunate victims of this horrific tragedy.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Before we go to the next statement, I would like to recognize the acting House leader.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I would simply wish to seek the consent of this House to waive the standing order that five members stand for division at 6 o'clock.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it agreed, unanimous consent? Agreed.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to make a statement today regarding the government's decision to end the early childhood education pilot programs and to make junior kindergarten a local option. We believe that this will seriously harm both young children and eventually the community at large.

All of the research and decades of experience of primary school teachers show that early childhood education is good for young people and has positive repercussions for their educational career.

Quality early childhood education actually saves money in the long run: More children stay in school longer, have improved literacy, numeracy and language skills and have less chance of future unemployment, teenage pregnancy or delinquency if they attend early childhood programs.

We know that parents want these programs. Currently 85% of the four-year-olds and 99% of the five-year-olds in Ontario are enrolled in public education kindergartens; almost all half-day.

The proposed pilots funded by the previous government were a sensible, low-cost approach to find out which programs are most effective. Ending the pilot projects and threatening other early childhood education is a serious mistake by this government, and young people and our whole society will pay the price. I urge the government to reconsider this poor decision.

BARRIE COLTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): As the senior member of Simcoe county, I congratulate you on your election as Speaker.

Recently I had the opportunity to drop the first puck to open the inaugural season of the new Barrie Colts hockey team. The Colts are the newest team in the Ontario Hockey League. The Colts and the residents of Barrie eagerly await the completion of the Barrie Molson Centre, a 4,500-seat, state-of-the-art facility that will be the new home to the Colts and many other entertainment events.

The tradition of the Colts has been a winning one. They have won many league and provincial championships. They even won the Memorial Cup, the measure of Canadian junior hockey supremacy, in 1953. The Colts have provided many young men with the opportunity to perfect their hockey skills. It is anticipated that several members of this year's team will be first-round draft picks in the NHL draft.

I would like to wish the management and players of the Barrie Colts much success for the coming season and future seasons. I have no doubt this organization will continue the tradition of success and will become the model for all other Ontario Hockey League franchises. I look forward to celebrating a Memorial Cup victory in the near future, and I encourage all members to come to Barrie and cheer on the Colts.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The government commitment to a 30% personal income tax cut has left municipalities in somewhat of a quandary. This commitment has had the effect of picking the pockets of municipalities, and as a result they are being forced to find new ways of collecting the shortfall in revenues. The solution is quite simple: They are simply going to raise property and business taxes across this province.

However, there is a problem with this. Businesses, especially small businesses, can't afford this. According to Ted Mallett of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "Higher property taxes would be disastrous. They will destroy jobs, income, and create more poverty" and inequities.

The typical business in Ontario is currently paying about $3,190 in taxes for every $100,000 of property value. How much more will be added on to this bill if the government follows through on its irresponsible 30% tax cut?

The Premier of this province knew full well when he made this promise in the Common Sense Revolution that he was simply passing the buck to the local municipalities, perfectly willing to let them bear the burden of trying to raise revenues after this government recklessly shafted the municipalities out of their fair share of income tax revenues.

1450

The government will only deliver on its promises to cut tax by 30% in rhetoric. In reality, both businesses and property owners alike will absorb the shortfall, and as a result, a further stagnation of the economy will ensue.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to direct my statement today to the Premier and the Minister of Labour.

I would like to invite the minister to Kapuskasing and to the Reesor siding, site of the 1963 shooting of three lumber and sawmill workers. At that site, Minister, is a statue; a woodsman and his family have been installed. This statue serves as both a memorial and a reminder of the lumber and sawmill strike a quarter of a century ago, in 1963, in which lives were lost in this violent protest.

This story began and ended on February 11, 1963, when the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co bush workers, having been involved in a lengthy strike, were protesting the mill's buying of lumber from farmers and labourers in the district. The strikers arrived on the scene with the intention of stopping any loading that might take place on that day. The suppliers were aware of the plan and shots were fired in the direction of the union men, killing three and wounding eight others. The strike ended soon after and the statue was erected three years later.

Kapuskasing will never forget that black day in 1963. Those were the bad old days of labour strife, of violence on the picket lines and severe labour and management confrontations.

Over the years progress has been made in labour relations by bringing in legislation to protect workers and bring about a more harmonious relationship in the workplace. Improvements in the workplace health and safety systems did this. Employee wage protection programs did this. Bill 40, placing a ban on replacement workers during a strike, did this.

Minister, your Bill 7 will take us back to the bad old days of labour strife, which workers in this province hoped we'd never see again and workers in Kapuskasing hoped they would never see again.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My statement concerns a celebration that demonstrates the spirit of volunteerism is thriving in the province of Ontario.

The third annual Good Neighbours Week began October 9 to coincide with Thanksgiving and runs to the 15th.

Good Neighbours is a community-based public awareness campaign to make our communities safer, friendlier and more responsive to people in need. It develops and nurtures informal support systems for those who may need help from time to time, especially the frail, vulnerable and isolated.

Launched in 1990, Good Neighbours is a three-way partnership between the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; corporate sponsors, including the Royal Bank and Consumers' Gas; and community volunteers.

In the speech from the throne on September 27, Premier Mike Harris said Ontarians are a generous people working to make their communities better places to live and he directed me to lead a government initiative to support and promote the spirit of volunteerism in the province.

I am proud Keswick, Uxbridge and Stouffville are among the 54 Ontario communities that have adopted the Good Neighbours campaign. Good Neighbours is an example of existing programs I will be promoting where volunteers make a commitment to the less fortunate and to our communities. Volunteerism demonstrates the kind of traditional community values that Good Neighbours represents in the province of Ontario.

DUTY-FREE SHOP

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate the University of Windsor on its second week's anniversary of operating the duty-free shop at the Ambassador Bridge, the second week with a liquor licence. The Ambassador Bridge is the longest international bridge in the world and is the only border crossing in Canada that is privately owned and whose property is interwoven neatly with that of the University of Windsor.

Firstly, I congratulate university president Ron Ianni for his innovation and creativity in battling the never-ending war of decreasing funding to universities. I congratulate the management of the Ambassador Bridge Co, including former Ontario minister Remo Mancini, who struck a contract that guarantees university student jobs at that duty-free shop and guarantees the university much-needed parking facilities and a handsome revenue regardless of sales during the business year. In fact, it's estimated that annual revenues to Ontario's LCBO for liquor sales alone will be $3 million to $4 million.

What's particularly interesting about this public-private partnership is the horrendous amount of red tape and bureaucracy the university had to endure to finally receive approval for its liquor licence.

Yes, the very minister who just the other day in this House expounded the virtues of the government commitment to enhancing small business opportunities went on to stall this licence for three months. Minister Sterling ran political interference with the LCBO, commandeering its board of directors at a provincial cost of $1 million in lost sales.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

Mrs Pupatello: But, best of all, congratulations to the University of Windsor.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, through you I'd like to deliver, through this statement, both orally and a letter to the Minister of Health, Mr Jim Wilson. I'd like to bring him up to date in regard to something that's been going on now for the past number of years regarding the establishment of a native health centre in the community of Timmins.

I think you, Mr Speaker, as well as everybody else in this assembly knows that the native people, the first nations people of this province, when it comes to measuring up the health care services that they have and their general health in regard to the comparison of people who are non-natives, there has been a very big difference over the years. In other words, if you happen to be native living in Ontario, the chances of your health being as good as or equal to those people who are non-native is somewhat lesser.

The reasons for that are many, but I think one of them we understand quite well as being one of culture. When it comes to accessing health care services for the first nations people in this province, often there is a difficulty in doing so because of cultural differences between our white community and non-white community. For that reason, health centres were being established, first of all, under the Liberal government of Mr Peterson, and under the Rae government, with the NDP government, to recognize that we needed to find ways to be able to deliver health care services directly to those people who are most in need through a means appropriate to them.

We are now into a situation in the community of Timmins where the Misiway Eniniwuk Community Health Centre is now on hold because the government is not willing to free up the funds that they need in order to carry on the next part of their project, which is finding them their permanent location.

I would like to deliver the Minister of Health a plea for help so that --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

Mr Bisson: -- he takes the opportunity to meet with the people from Timmins in order to go through --

The Speaker: Next statement.

Mr Bisson: -- and to be able to commit to what this government --

The Speaker: Come on. We've got to make these statements a little shorter.

VETERANS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents from Etobicoke-Rexdale to pay tribute to the 1,086,343 Canadian men and women who served in the Second World War. It has been 50 years since the end of that war.

Canada's contribution to the Second World War has a great historical significance to the way our country is perceived by the nations of the world. Our declaration of war against the Third Reich in September 1939 was initiated in our own Parliament. This marked substantially the first sign of our nation's independence from Britain in the area of foreign affairs.

The Royal Canadian Air Force was responsible for the air combat training of the Allied pilots.

Volunteer enlistment in Canada was the highest of all the Allied nations, with men and women as young as 17 answering Canada's call to arms to preserve the peace.

As the war intensified, our forces spearheaded several Allied assaults with the same pride and courage that has now become traditional in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This year commemorates the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory in Japan days. Let us all pay our respects to the 1.1 million Canadians who fought to preserve our nation's freedom, and to the 42,042 who paid the supreme sacrifice and never made it home.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to say thanks to all the veterans, their families and fallen comrades. Thank you and God bless.

1500

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris Common Sense Revolution campaign document said `not a penny' of health care funding will be touched;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `We will not cut health care spending, it is far too important';

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution said, `There will be no new user fees';

"Whereas the first financial activity of the Harris government has been to actually cut $130 million from the health budget;

"Whereas the Harris government has announced they are actively considering new user fees;

"We, the undersigned, demand a public apology from the Harris government for breaking their election promise on health care and putting our treasured health care system at risk by cutting health spending by $130 million."

I've signed my name to this petition and I support it.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This petition grew out of the demonstration today at the Minister of Health's office at 12 noon. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the PC government is going to open a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are existing facilities that could be expanded to assess and treat the criminally insane; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents, not the business community, not leaders of community organizations, not education and child care providers and not even" -- get this -- "the local members of provincial Parliament for Parkdale and Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the PC government of Ontario and the Minister of Health to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I will sign my name to this document.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1995

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.