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

October 5, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L007 - Thu 5 Oct 1995 / Jeu 5 Oct 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

JESSE'S JOURNEY

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

CALABOGIE PEAKS RESORT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

BERNT GILBERTSON

VISITORS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

HOMOLKA CASE

EDUCATION FINANCING

REVIEW OF HOSPITALS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

HOMOLKA CASE

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

HOMOLKA CASE

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

HOMOLKA CASE

VEHICLE SAFETY

HOMOLKA CASE

VEHICLE SAFETY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday in this House the minister responsible for women's issues, while responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition regarding second-stage housing projects for victims of sexual abuse, delivered a very interesting answer. The minister said that when she met with a group of women about second-stage housing earlier this week, the group told the minister, "There is room for more coordination and efficiencies."

I'd like to inform the minister and this House that we've received a letter from the people the minister met with. The minister might find it interesting to know that the coordinator of the workshop for women's abuse coordinating committees had a very different

interpretation of what they told the minister at that meeting.

In fact, the letter I have states that during the time the minister was at the meeting, there was absolutely no discussion about possible cuts to second-stage housing. In fact, the focus of the conference was, for various sectors involved in women's abuse, to improve coordination to be more effective in responding to abused women.

I was shocked when I received this letter. I know that while in opposition the member for London North was an effective advocate for women and children throughout the province. I'm concerned that now, as a member of cabinet, where the minister can directly influence public policy, she has forgotten her commitment to women's issues.

The minister responsible for women's issues is supposed to be a voice for women across the province, yet she does not seem to be concerned about the welfare and the suffering of abuse victims in Ontario.

I hope the minister will quickly retract and apologize to the women's abuse coordinating committees from across southern and central Ontario.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Last July the Ministry of Transportation cut transit services for the most vulnerable, the disabled, yet the minister tried to blame this on the Toronto Transit Commission. But the government's cut was specifically, deliberately designed and addressed to transit services to the less fortunate, the disabled. Apparently, the government's pledge to protect the truly vulnerable in our society is totally null and void, as they have specifically focused on disabled transit for cuts.

I want to read to you, Mr Speaker, and I want to take you back to the last election campaign when the Conservatives answered a questionnaire, "A Mike Harris government would remain committed to funding fully accessible conventional public transportation, community buses, accessible taxis, and specialized transit services."

Since the election they have become indeed most economical with the truth. Many of the services are put in jeopardy. The cuts simply mean that some people may have to quit their jobs because they won't have reliable transportation. It's as simple as that.

Helping people get back to work was another Conservative promise, and yet you have broken that promise. You're using the disabled, people who don't have a voice, to fulfil your agenda. When will you restore equilibrium to give everyone an equal chance to have accessible transit?

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Sir, may I first congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I am sure that you will preside over this House with both fairness and efficiency.

I rise today to report on a very important event that took place last weekend in London; namely, the conclusion of the first phase of Jesse's Journey. As many members of this House will know, Jesse's Journey is a project of London South's Jesse and John Davidson, with a goal of raising $1 million this year for gene and cell therapy research. This research holds the prospect of a cure for several genetic disorders.

This journey started in northwestern Ontario and ended some four million steps later in Ottawa in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. We learned last Saturday that over $800,000 of the $1-million goal has already been raised, with excellent prospects for the balance, and that Jesse's Journey is going to be an annual fund-raising drive.

I know that every member of this House will join with me in congratulating two outstanding Canadians, Jesse and John Davidson.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation another broken promise by the Progressive Conservative government in regard to the funding of the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton-Wentworth.

On December 15, 1994, while leader of the third party, Mike Harris said, "A Mike Harris government will support and fund a full-fledged expressway, up to and including the six-lane model which was originally approved." On July 21, 1995, Finance Minister Ernie Eves cut the funding for the Red Hill Creek Expressway by 50% for 1995 and possibly the same for 1996.

I want to remind the Minister of Transportation that it was the NDP's cancellation of this project that delayed economic growth, that delayed construction in Hamilton-Wentworth, that cost jobs. It was the same cancellation of this project that caused five out of six members of the NDP government to be defeated in Hamilton-Wentworth during the 1995 election.

I want to remind the Minister of Transportation that this commitment must be lived up to. The promise made by the Premier was not conditional. The promise made by the Premier was not one of deferrals or, "Possibly we'll fund it"; the promise was clear and unequivocal. This delay is going to cause delay in the completion. There's no guarantee that this government will restore the funding next year or the year after, which will cause further delays both in the east-west and north-south portions.

I say to this minister: I'd appreciate it if you can live up to the commitment made by your Premier to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. Come through with the full funding. If that doesn't happen, the same fate, I'm sure, will occur to the members of your government as happened to the government that is now third in the House.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This government day after day repeats in this House that the purpose of the cuts, the purpose of the policies that they are putting forward, is to force the people of Ontario to become more independent, and yet with each day we find that each of their cuts reduces the ability of people to become independent. Let me give you some examples.

The cutting of Jobs Ontario Training: One of the most successful programs ever put in place, not only in Ontario but across Canada, to make it possible for people to work in private industry at full salary while obtaining the training for themselves and for fellow workers, was cut. Sixty-five thousand people were participants in that successful program and they have lost their opportunity to be independent.

Yesterday we found that counselling in second-stage housing facilities is to be cut to women who have escaped battering situations. Again, that counselling helped those women to become independent. We hear that they have destroyed funding for homes for pregnant teenagers, again, homes dedicated to helping those young women be successful parents and maintain a productive place in their communities.

Every example we bring forward shows that in fact it is nonsense that the policies of the Conservatives will create independence for those who wish to have that more than anything else in their communities.

CALABOGIE PEAKS RESORT

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It is with great pleasure that I announce to this House that Calabogie Peaks Resort will be open for business this winter. The people of Lanark-Renfrew will once again have the opportunity to enjoy the excellent downhill skiing which Calabogie has to offer.

This opening will represent new jobs, more tourism and greater private sector growth for Calabogie and Lanark-Renfrew. For their efforts I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for their cooperation and the municipal council of the township of Bagot and Blythfield for passing a draft plan and zoning bylaw which paved the way for this development.

Congratulations must also go out to the management of Calabogie Peaks Resort for their true entrepreneurial spirit and their commitment to the community. You see, Calabogie Peaks has been closed since 1991. I first became involved at that time to try and assist in obtaining approvals at the provincial level for the necessary plans required.

Now, thanks to the policies and direction that this government is prepared to take, businesses in Ontario are experiencing a new sense of optimism and confidence by removing the barriers to job creation and eliminating red tape.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Tonight there will be farewell party for eight members of the Queen's Park media who are moving on. The Liberal caucus wanted to purchase a little gift for those who were departing. Obviously, we wanted to show our appreciation. We wanted something that was symbolic and of course not too expensive and we wanted it to reflect the new Mike Harris government.

We thought about that in caucus this morning, then the decision became obvious and we went out today and bartered for some tins of tuna for the departing members. We were fortunate; we were able to get it. We got eight tins of Dave's Tuna, and there's a cute little picture of a cat on here.

Interjection: How much?

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Well, we couldn't find the 69-cent tuna. This happened to be 79 cents, but the Liberal caucus threw in the extra 10 cents and so we're very pleased. I think this reflects the new government for the departing members: Dan Nolan from the Hamilton Spectator, Rob Savage from Thomson News, Bob Weiers from CBC, Colleen McEdwards, Havard Gould, Annie Gagnon, Shane Roberts and John McKay. We will present this to them tonight.

It's a fine memento of the new Mike Harris government and I think it will be something they'll always remember, even though it was 79 cents instead of the 69 cents that we've been promised. We're quite prepared to throw in the extra 10 cents for the fine Queen's Park gallery.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On Tuesday, I asked a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. I was disappointed that she chose not to answer my question related to the cancellation of birthing centres and other cuts to services to women and children. However, I did then give her the benefit of the doubt and stated that I thought she really did care.

Well, like thousands of others across Ontario, I was shocked to the core when I heard that the government is slashing millions of dollars from the budgets of transition houses for battered women and their children. I can't tell you the despair I felt when the minister responsible for women's issues stood on her feet and carefully mouthed the already tired mantra from the Common Sense Revolution.

She made no apologies for these devastating cuts and indeed suggested that they were needed and would not hurt women. We are talking about enormously vulnerable people here. In some cases, we are literally talking about life and death. To top it all off, her caucus applauded loudly and approvingly when she completed her answer.

I am disgusted with the ease and complacency with which this government is making cuts to the poor and vulnerable so they can give tax cuts to the well-off. Madam Minister, please talk to your Premier. Use your seniority, your influence, to reverse this terrible, tragic decision and do it today.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I would ask that the honourable members, when they are at home this weekend enjoying the bounty of this year's harvest, take time to remember all those who make up Ontario's agricultural family. These are the people who work so hard to produce the food we all enjoy.

I would also like to draw attention to the advertisement I ran across in Tuesday's edition of a well-known daily newspaper. This ad placed by the Royal Bank begins: "You have a lot on your plate. This weekend would be a good time to thank the people who put it there." The ad then points out the importance of agriculture and agribusiness to our economy and closes, "Thanksgiving wouldn't be the same without agriculture."

I feel that this is a fitting tribute to the great contribution our farmers make, not just to our economy but to all our lives.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for statements has expired.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I rise to request of the House unanimous consent to note the passing of a previous member.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

BERNT GILBERTSON

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to pay tribute to my predecessor as the MPP for Algoma, Bernt Gilbertson, who served in this place from 1967 to 1975, who passed away this summer after the last session was completed.

Previous to serving in the Legislature, Bernt served as a member of the school board in his area. He was very active in his community and very active in his church. He was well known for his good humour and generosity and the dignity with which he conducted himself in all areas of his life.

He lived a long, full and happy life which began as a young man working on the lakers along the Great Lakes. He later married Rose Hawdon of St Joseph Island and settled down there to raise a very large family. He became very well known as a producer of maple syrup and as an owner of a pancake house and the operator of a trucking business. As a matter of fact, he was well known in this place for supplying maple syrup every spring to most of the members of the Legislature, and when I came here in his stead, I found that I was expected to bring cans of maple syrup from St Joseph Island down here for members every year.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Well?

Mr Wildman: There are still some members with memories long enough who expect me to do it, but luckily for me they aren't all here yet.

One of the major issues that Bernt dealt with as a member was a need and desire to have a bridge built from the mainland to St Joseph Island, an issue that had been talked about for over a century and that came to fruition in the early 1970s after Bernt had raised the matter many times in this Legislature.

Last fall, I had the pleasure to join with the people of St Joseph Island and members of the Gilbertson family to officially name the St Joseph Island Bridge the Bernt Gilbertson St Joseph Island Bridge as a lasting tribute to the commitment of Bernt Gilbertson to the people of Algoma and particularly to the people of St Joseph Island.

In the last few years, Bernt had suffered from ill health and his passing was a great loss to everyone in the community.

Our sympathy goes out to Mrs Gilbertson and her family. They have a right to be very proud of the work of a former deputy whip and government whip in this Legislature and a real community worker.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like, on behalf of my party, to express our condolences to Mr Gilbertson's family as well. I noticed that the member for Algoma, being a member of the third party, did not happen to mention that Bernt was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. You might have guessed that from his background as an entrepreneur and a businessperson. Bernt as well was a man of great generosity in terms of bringing to the Legislature each spring maple syrup for everyone. But Bernt, while he was here, also served as the caucus chairman and the chief whip of our party and so was given significant responsibility at that time.

It's also important to note that his wife, Rose, at that point in time when Bernt was a member here, served as his constituency assistant. Now, our rules don't allow any member to hire their spouse at this point in time, but it should be noted that Rose worked for nothing, and therefore there wasn't a problem with conflict between what he was doing and the other.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Why didn't you follow his example?

Hon Mr Sterling: The member for Windsor-Riverside says that he would like to follow that example, and I think he should.

Bernt Gilbertson knew many of the members. I was only elected in 1977 but was informed by many of the members when I did come to the Legislature of their love and respect for this man and the fact that Bernt Gilbertson, when he spoke in this Legislature, did not speak so much as a partisan but on behalf of the people he represented in the riding of Algoma.

I'd like to thank the present member for Algoma for attending the funeral and speaking on behalf of the members of the Legislature at that time.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm privileged to stand on behalf of our party to speak to the Gilbertson family on the passing of Bernt. There's a strong kinship one feels with a member who also lived on an island, as one from Manitoulin can say. As I looked over Mr Gilbertson's write-up in the Sault Star, I noticed that he had many of the traits that I see in my communities and the small communities of the North Shore of Manitoulin Island and indeed in most of Algoma.

He came as a person with nothing. He built a business. He worked hard. He served his community, he served his hospitals, he served the board of education. Not knowing him but having heard many things about him from people in my area, I just can sense that he was not one who thought that was anything out of the ordinary; it was just something you did. He's typical, in many ways, of the people that I represent and that many of us represent here in the Legislature in that this strong sense of community was something you just did.

He built -- and I think the most famous thing, and it's been alluded to already -- the maple syrup business. It is absolutely famous along the North Shore and in Sault Ste Marie. I would invite people to go up and tour that facility. It is magnificent. You will enjoy the syrup. This was all started by a young man who came to Canada, I believe, when he was eight years old. I think that speaks to itself.

He came to this Legislature to serve the people. He knew who he served: He served the people of Algoma. He did some remarkable things. He's spoken of the bridge. The bridge, to someone on an island, is extraordinarily important. I think that the naming of that bridge after Mr Gilbertson will be a tribute that his family can look to for years and generations to come.

So on behalf of the Liberal Party, my leader Lyn McLeod and the people in the adjoining constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin, I'd like to express our deep sympathy to the Gilbertson family.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to thank all honourable members for their input, and I will see that a copy of Hansard is sent to the members of the family.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a delegation from South Africa, headed by Dr Anne Van Der Spey. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Yesterday, the leader of the official opposition (Mrs McLeod) rose on a point of order with respect to the failure of the Minister of Community and Social Services to provide her and other members with certain documentation. The member will know that the Speaker has no authority to compel the minister to provide such materials. However, the member may wish to make an inquiry on the subject during oral question period.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): May I ask the following point of order? My request was to ask you to review whether or not the minister had misled the House, not to ask him to produce the budget.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): On Wednesday and Thursday of last week, the member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway) raised some concerns respecting the events of Wednesday, September 27, as well as other matters relating to the security of the legislative precinct. Several members spoke to this on that same day and on successive days, namely, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke), the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley), the member for Wilson Heights (Mr Kwinter), and the government House leader (Mr Eves).

I have now had an opportunity to review the circumstances of the day in question, and I must say that some of the occurrences caused me grave concern. In reviewing the situation, I have found that indeed the honourable member for Renfrew North and other members were, for a time, denied access to the Legislative Building. This was a very serious incident and not one which should be repeated.

The issue of security in this place is a challenging one. The events of last week did not develop out of a deliberate intent to obstruct any member in the performance of his or her duty but rather out of caution and a desire to ensure the safety of members, staff and public. It may be that it should have been handled differently and it is this issue that I would like to address.

Members will know that under subsection 103(2) of the Legislative Assembly Act the Speaker is responsible for establishing security guidelines for the legislative precinct. This is an onerous responsibility and not one which can be fulfilled in the absence of full consultation with you, the members of this House.

In order to ensure that consultation, pursuant to standing order 106(i), I intend to refer the matter of security in the parliamentary precinct to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. It is my hope that consideration of the relevant security issues by this committee will assist me to meet my obligation to establish clear guidelines that will ensure the safety of the occupants of this precinct without impeding the access of members to this chamber.

I thank the member for Renfrew North and other members for bringing these very important concerns to my attention.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, just one question, if I might -- and I appreciate your statement today and the fact that you are yourself referring this matter to the Legislative Assembly committee.

I assume the commitment from the government House leader still stands, that a motion will be brought before the assembly that will refer other items around security and what happened on that particular day to the Legislative Assembly committee.

My question, though, is that there were certainly quotes in the press from the Sergeant at Arms that a report was being done for him to you on the incidents around the throne speech day that would outline some of the problems and what led to them. I'm wondering if your statement today is a result of that report, and if that is the case, whether that report would either be tabled in the House or shared with the House leaders of the three parties, because I, for one, would like to see the report and I think, as members, we would be entitled to that.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Mr Speaker, I appreciate your response today.

When I raised this matter about a week ago, I asked specifically as to who gave the order that members of the assembly would not be granted access to this building. While I listened very carefully to your response this afternoon, I can only conclude that either you gave the order, which I do not believe to be the case, or that someone in your name gave the order. As I understand the practices of this place, the only person who would be in a position to give that order would the Sergeant at Arms. Now, if my good friend Thomas Stelling did not give the order, I would still, before this process is concluded, like to know.

I recognize the difficulty of the day; I appreciate the really tough situation with which the security forces were faced on that day, Wednesday of last week. But I really would like to know who did give the order, on what authority and, notwithstanding the difficulty of the moment that day, I'd like some assurance that for whatever inadvertence, confusion, misdirection, misjudgement that might have caused that order to have been given and applied to honourable members on that day last week, that particular difficulty will be addressed in whatever reference under your very capable leadership.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their questions. It's not my duty to answer questions in the Legislature, but I will be happy to make the contents of that full report known when I attend upon the legislative committee when they're dealing with that issue.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to inform this House that our government is proclaiming today as World Teachers' Day in Ontario. We are extremely pleased to support UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which has designated this day as World Teachers' Day to recognize the hard work and vital role undertaken by teachers. Education is the soul of a society, and teachers are the custodians of a very important trust.

On this special occasion, I am also pleased to acknowledge and recognize the presence today in our chambers of M. Robert, who as president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation is here representing the teachers of our province.

By declaring this to be World Teachers' Day in Ontario we show our deep appreciation for the dedication of Ontario's classroom teachers who, by working with students, parents and others in the broader community, daily demonstrate their commitment to help bring about a brighter future for our citizens.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I was certainly looking forward to hearing a statement from the Minister of Education today that might reflect a little bit more about the educational agenda of this province, but I at this point would just like to follow up on what my colleague had to say yesterday in terms of, yes, this being the United Nations' World Teachers' Day, and of course yesterday he indicated that the teachers of Ontario really deserve this special honour and deserve this day dedicated to them. I could not agree more with that.

As some members of the House will know, I have been honoured by being appointed a judge of a very important selection in the province; of course, that's selecting teachers of the year from across the province. That is an honour that I take very seriously.

When we go to select those teachers of the year, we have applicants who come from across the province. I must say, in this past selection, this past year, in this contest put on by both OISE, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and the Toronto Sun, we had some 1,200 nominations of very dedicated people from across this province. As I went through those very dedicated nominees and took a look at what they did and their commitment to education in this province, I cannot tell you what a difficult task it was to select those 10 teachers who have made a contribution, as teachers around the world have.

Mr Speaker, you will know as well that I as a teacher on leave, and more importantly teachers in the classroom today, respect this day to observe some of the very fine things that are going on in education. I must go back to the days of old where I attended a one-room school house, the old No. 4 school on the Redditt Road, and think of the dedication that was in that one-room school house, the dedication that came through teachers who taught me as I went up through the ranks in the Kenora Board of Education, and I think of that dedication that was extended to the students around me as well.

But education has come a long way since then. I talk of the No. 4 school, a one-room school house; it's actually a school today with a gymnasium. But we cannot just give credit to the bricks and mortar of the institutions that have been built around us; we must give the credit to those who are most deserving, the teachers.

As I travel across the province, I do hear some concern about this minister, a minister who came out in one of his major announcements that he was going to create a crisis in education. I observe those very true concerns of the people, the people I say we are dedicating this day to, the people on the front line. I must say to the minister that he must note the true value of these teachers and not just address them as a special interest in this very important institution of ours in education.

Again, Minister, I think you must act as an advocate on behalf of education in this province. It truly, truly discomforts me to know that you're a minister who began with a statement such as that of developing a crisis in education. I call upon you as the Minister of Education to work with the people you have dedicated this day to and work very closely with them.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate the Minister of Education and Training on his announcement of proclamation of October 5 in Ontario as World Teachers' Day in this province. One wag suggested that I should ask the minister if this was a real proclamation or one that he has just invented.

I want to say though that we all recognize that teachers are in fact the front-line service providers in education and that they do deserve recognition. As a member of the teaching profession, I guess I should declare a conflict of interest here, but I would say that all of us in this House, whatever our chosen vocation, will be able to remember one or more teachers in our school days who influenced us deeply. In most cases, I would expect that that has been a very positive influence, someone who has helped us to achieve and to understand and to become a better person.

For that reason, all of us, individually and collectively, understand the importance of the teaching profession in our communities.

At a time of restraint when we are expecting to see cuts, it is even more difficult for the teachers of the province to carry out their very important role and mandate on behalf of the students of the province. So I would hope that the minister would take that into account as he gets advice from many different directions.

I know that there have even been ruminations about the virtual school and whether or not we need to have students in classrooms, whether we can perhaps, through technologies, have a situation going into the 21st century where eventually we may in fact have students learning at home and not needing to attend a school.

I hope as you look at those kinds of things, Minister, that you will understand the very important relationship between the instructor and the student and among the students, and that as we come to understand the need to adapt to the new technologies in the information age, there is nothing that can replace the teacher in education. As the royal commission indicated, the most important educational tool that we have is a good, dedicated teacher.

I want to join with all members of the House to recognize the role and importance of teachers in Ontario and indeed around the world and to congratulate Mr Robert on behalf of the Ontario Teachers' Federation for not only their work for teachers and for education in Ontario but the international role that they carry out.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation, through its international assistance program, supports teachers from developing countries in the practice of their profession. The financial support that the OTF is able to send enables teachers overseas to buy whole school sets of textbooks, supports teacher education programs in teachers' home countries and makes it possible for teachers to study overseas.

Ontario teachers recognize the importance of their role here, but also their obligation to serve and to assist education throughout the world. I congratulate the government for joining with UNESCO in recognizing World Teachers' Day and thank the minister for acting in this regard.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Health, who is just about to resume his seat. Minister, for two days in a row now in this Legislature you have been asked whether you are considering cuts of 10% to even 20% to the hospital budgets across this province. You have consistently, over those two days, refused to deny that you are considering cuts of that magnitude. We understand that a cut of 20% to hospital budgets is a cut of about $1.4 billion. Will you confirm that you are indeed considering cuts of as much as $1.4 billion to hospitals across this province?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question again and would simply say to her that I cannot, will not, confirm that, in terms of it's strictly speculation and the speculation certainly has not come from me or from any other cabinet minister. I don't think it's appropriate to continue to have this debate about speculation and create instability in the sector.

Mrs McLeod: We intend, day after day, to give this minister an opportunity to put an end to the speculation and create some certainty around this issue. The minister is more than willing to respond to our questions by telling us that he's meeting with the chief executive officers of hospitals, who are ready to look at efficiencies and savings. He's talked to us about the importance of restructuring, and on that everyone agrees.

But we're also very much aware that every hospital across this province has been struggling to find the efficiencies, working for a long time to find efficiencies so they can protect health care. We know that every community is trying to come to grips with the need to restructure the health care system so they can meet the health care needs in their particular community.

The pressures on hospitals, I'm sure this minister will agree, are enormous. We've even seen in recent years rural hospitals closing emergency rooms, and that's a concern that this minister has addressed in the past. Yet now this same minister appears to be considering cuts of up to 20% in the budgets of those same hospitals.

Minister, will you at least tell hospitals what it is you are planning to do? Are you going to cut their budgets, and, if so, by how much? End the speculation.

Hon Mr Wilson: Perhaps the speculation comes -- and I had a long, long meeting this morning with the Ontario Hospital Association and part of the agenda included this question -- from what the opposition's reaction is or will be to some of these hospital restructurings. I said there are 26 that are coming in very soon from around the province.

My question would be, to the honourable member, if money is saved through those hospital restructurings and we reinvest that in long-term care, for example, outside of the hospital budget, would she and her party consider that a cut or a better use of resources that aren't needed on one side of the ledger and are needed on the long-term-care side? So this is the discussion we had with the OHA. I'd be interested to note what her party's position is about reinvesting money in the health care envelope, as we promised the people of Ontario we would do.

Mrs McLeod: I would remind the minister that he is now responsible for ensuring the delivery of health care in the province of Ontario. He has the responsibilities of serving as a member of the government and it is for him to answer the question that is in the minds of hospital administrators, people who are concerned about health care across this province right now.

I say to this minister, you cannot restructure, you cannot bring about efficiencies, you cannot do any planning at all unless you know with certainty what your budgets are going to be.

I will not respond to his question to me, but I will indeed put the question directly back to the minister in a way in which he could end the uncertainty with a simple yes-or-no answer. He could give the hospitals the certainty they need. So I ask him today: Will you commit to freezing hospital budgets at last year's levels so that hospitals can then reinvest the savings they may find to ensure they are providing health care in their own communities? Will you commit to that?

Hon Mr Wilson: With some of the reinvestment initiatives that we're planning, that we're discussing right now with provider groups and front-line workers and administrators, it's very difficult to say exactly a specific answer to that question, because we're talking to hospitals. I had a meeting with the OHA today exactly about this, and we're continuing to consult.

As I said, there's some confusion out there about money that's saved, and unfortunately the previous government that launched all these restructuring studies didn't leave us a blueprint, by any stretch of the imagination, of what we're supposed to do with all these studies now that they're landing on my desk and district health council desks.

So we're having these discussions with our partners, with the hospitals themselves. At the end of the day there will be money saved, I guess, in some of these restructuring studies, and we'll want to reinvest that into things like long-term care. Those are the discussions we're having right now with the hospital sector.

Mrs McLeod: I will clearly take that as a no; the minister will not commit to flat-lining the budgets of hospitals across the province. We simply need to know now how great the cut will be.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will address my second question to the Premier. I understand that the Premier has said he is going to drop by a food bank to make a donation on his way home from work before Thanksgiving weekend. But I did want to remind the Premier of another food program that he's shown a great deal of interest in in the past, and that's a province-wide breakfast program, something which this Premier has championed for years.

About a month ago the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who is our critic for children's services, reminded the Premier of his commitment to establish a province-wide breakfast program and of his conviction that that kind of a program could and should be started immediately. In fact, I think the now Premier has said it could begin tomorrow.

When my colleague reminded the Premier of that commitment, he indicated that if she wanted a breakfast program in her community she should go ahead and set one up. So I would like to ask you, Premier, whether you were indeed serious when you made that comment to our member, that if a Liberal member wants a breakfast program in her community she should set it up herself, even though it was a commitment which you made and even though in the past, I recall, you said this would take leadership from the Premier himself.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me say to the leader of the official opposition, with comments to the food bank, that I believe this is going to be a very difficult time for a lot of people in Ontario. Quite clearly, as we have had to reduce because of a $10-billion deficit -- because of the fact that if we do nothing somebody else is going to come in and tell us to cut it all out; we're going to lose this great province of ours and the ability to be compassionate -- we've had to make some very difficult decisions. There are restructurings that are taking place.

I have dropped off some food. We'll be dropping off more, both here and in my riding of North Bay. I would encourage all members and neighbours and churches and communities to be compassionate at a very difficult time for many people.

Specifically regarding nutrition programs, the leader of the official opposition will know that in the throne speech we made reference to the fact that to get programs running everywhere and to try to ensure that every school child has the opportunity, whether it's breakfast or throughout the day, to have proper nutrition, I think it is going to take more than individual effort.

I welcome the participation of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I hope she will work with the parliamentary assistant who we're asking to coordinate on behalf of my office. I would ask the leader of the official opposition and I would ask the leader of the New Democratic Party and all members; I don't see why we cannot have 130 ambassadors for nutrition programs in every riding of this province.

Mrs McLeod: That seems to me to be a rather long way from the ringing commitment that the Premier made as an opposition leader in calling for this breakfast program to be established and for the Premier of the day to take leadership on the issue.

Nevertheless, I say to the Premier that when he directed the member for Windsor-Sandwich to set up a breakfast program in her own community if she wanted to, she took it very seriously indeed. In fact our critic for children's services has now contacted every school board in the province, indicating that she had been directed by this Premier to set up a school breakfast program in her community. She wanted to find out what already exists, what's working and what's needed.

She's been in touch with community groups and she's been in touch with corporations to talk to them about their ideas for breakfast programs and what they would be willing to do to help. Through her work, Premier, she has identified an action plan for moving forward on your promise.

In opposition, you asked for the green light to go out on behalf of the Legislature in a non-partisan way to coordinate the program. Since you don't appear to be making this program a priority any longer, I'm asking you today to give my colleague the green light to start work on this project on a province-wide basis. Will you direct the Minister of Community and Social Services to work with my colleague in fulfilling your promise?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the leader of the official opposition, and I'm sure all members of the House, would know that over the last period of time there has been success story after success story. In Kitchener-Waterloo the Minister of Labour has been active over a period of time in coordinating a number of programs there. In Grey the member has been instrumental in nutrition programs.

Let me congratulate the member for Windsor-Sandwich; exactly the kind of spirit we need from all of us to coordinate --

Applause.

Hon Mr Harris: -- and I do congratulate her -- in the private sector, and examples that she found out.

Let me say that I think there are blueprints and there are models. The member for Grey-Owen Sound has shared those with previous members of the Legislature on what's been done in Grey. We would encourage people to do that. I hope the member for Windsor-Sandwich will work with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, who already has been meeting with corporations. We have had a surprising number of calls, in fact in the millions of dollars' range, from the private sector that we need to follow up on, that they would like to be involved in. This is indeed the Ontario, the Canadian, the community spirit way.

The member will know that I had always said it isn't the ministry, it isn't government dollars, it is the commitment and the will of the Premier using the Premier's office, the Leader of the Opposition using her office, the leader of the New Democratic Party using his office and 130 of us using our offices. It's starting to work, and I congratulate the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I've discovered a number of important items that our Premier must have overlooked in his five years as superman of nutrition programs in Ontario. There's been no needs assessment across Ontario to determine what criteria should be included for such a program. No one knows exactly how many programs even exist, including our Premier, and how they operate. Current startup fundings for such programs do not even identify common criteria.

From my discussions with corporate leaders interested in youth, like Kellogg's, like Toronto Raptors, and service providers, I believe there is an overwhelming desire to participate in a process that will determine exactly what that program should be. Do I have the Premier's word that he will assist in this development and follow through with, quote, leadership from his office to implement such a program with little or no taxpayers' dollars?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me first of all say this: Nobody is superman in this province, nobody is superperson, nobody has a lock on compassion. What is required is indeed a coordinated community spirit, an effort from all members.

I want to say very directly that my pushing and promoting in opposition the Premier to use his office I believe was in the exact spirit, I think, of the question that's being asked by the member from Windsor-Sandwich. I accept. I will put my office, my name, my parliamentary assistant taking the lead, front and centre, and we'll do everything we can to assist, to coordinate, to get dollars, to get the private sector involved.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Contrary to the interjections by some other members, let me congratulate the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I think this is a great non-partisan issue. If the other members opposite wish to join in I hope that they will, because I offered this as leader of the third party in a non-partisan way and I offer it now as Premier in a non-partisan way as one of 130 of us. Let's all come together and make sure that every child attending school has the nutrition they need.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Since Bill 40 was passed Ontario has experienced an unprecedented era of labour peace -- an unprecedented era of labour peace. That hasn't always been the case. In fact last evening many of the television news programs were showing clips of violence that has occurred on picket lines before Bill 40, and it should surprise no one that from time to time there will be confrontation when workers on strike see someone breaking their picket line and going in and virtually taking their job away from them.

Minister, my question to you is, do you support strikebreakers?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member opposite, I would simply indicate that what happened yesterday is that we repealed the provisions of Bill 40 that were put in place by your government, so now the ban on replacement workers is gone.

Mr Christopherson: I'm not sure I got an answer to the question, Minister, but I'll push forward.

In your statements yesterday, Minister, you talked a lot about workplace democracy, yet when workers go on strike they make a democratic decision by majority vote to go on strike. When someone has voted to give up their paycheque, when many of them are living paycheque to paycheque to support their bargaining committee during the negotiations, when through the secret ballot they've had with the union they have decided through a democratic process to go on strike, why have you decided to ignore their democratic decisions, to ignore the maintenance of labour peace in this province, and why are you not continuing to outlaw strikebreakers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: What we are doing in the legislation we introduced yesterday is to encourage job creation in this province. At the same time, we have introduced democracy measures that are going to enhance the rights of the individual employee. We are going to give all employees information and give them the opportunity prior to any certification to exercise their rights through means of a secret ballot vote. Yes, we're also going to let them vote and determine whether they want to go on strike, whether to ratify a contract and whether to decertify.

I would indicate to you that this bill is going to encourage job creation and will be a benefit to all workers in this province.

Mr Christopherson: Obviously this minister is ashamed of that part of the bill because she refuses to talk about the fact that she is going to make legal again in this province the use of strikebreakers. That has been my question to you, Minister. You've refused to deal with it.

I'm asking you once again, as I did yesterday: You mentioned what you're going to do about Bill 40 in the Common Sense Revolution to the extent of 67 words, yet you've introduced a document that runs to 137 pages. We know that even different business groups have different points of view about whether or not you should do this and how quickly you should do it. I ask you again, Minister, will you commit today to ensuring the fullest possible public hearings in the province of Ontario before you ram this bill through?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the question, and I would just like to indicate to the member opposite that already, as a result of the introduction of our Bill 7 yesterday, we have received today a letter from the Hudson's Bay Co --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- indicating that they are proceeding with a plan over the next 12 months to renovate, expand and construct new stores in the amount of $284 million. This will create --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I hope you are right. Do you have the book --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon has continuously been out of order, and I will not warn him again.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The introduction of this bill yesterday is getting this province back to work. This is creating 10,000 jobs for construction workers, and the indication here is that there will be over 4,000 people hired for new jobs. Our introduction of Bill 7 yesterday means new job creation for people in this province and a better quality of life for those who don't have jobs.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, yesterday you described a meeting you attended this past Monday, and in doing so you gave the distinct impression that the meeting was held to discuss efficiency in the system that supports abused women. Minister, the organizers of that meeting say you grossly misrepresented it.

In fact, Vivien Green of Metro's Women Abuse Protocol Project writes, "I am appalled at how the minister has attempted to use the workshop to justify her government's cuts to services and support for abused women." Minister, would you explain for Ms Green and all the other women of Ontario how you view your role in cabinet as minister responsible for women's issues?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with responsibility for Women's Issues): I too spoke to Vivien Green today. We had a discussion about the comments that are around the province of Ontario. I clearly stated yesterday that I learned a lot in the few moments I was there -- it's never long enough in this job -- that we need to coordinate our services in the province of Ontario when it comes to initiatives to prevent violence against women. I did not distort that in the House yesterday. I've read my comments, I discussed them with her, and I think she was in agreement with me.

I will also state that I said yesterday in this House that we have a tremendous responsibility --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Hamilton East is not in his own chair.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- in this government to continue to support the core services for women, and the transition homes agree with that. If they had a priority, it would in fact be to support the core services for women.

I should also state that we do not have the money to be able to add any new core funding for additional shelters, and that's a reality for us. It was also a reality for Mr Silipo, who was the Minister of Community and Social Services in November 1994. We have the same position. We both agree we have challenges, and I think you would agree with that as well.

Ms Churley: Based on my conversation with Ms Green, I believe the minister will be receiving another letter from her as a result of that answer. That meeting was set up six months ago, and you came in and spoke very briefly at the beginning.

However, let me ask you another question, Minister. Would you explain to the House the purpose of second-stage shelter for abused women and their children?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I will take it that you also understand that second-stage housing is a support for women who, after a period of time, usually six weeks, move into this special kind of housing, which was developed in the last five or six years. It's a program that we support. We will not be cutting any of the core funding to that second-stage housing. We will continue to support counselling services to the tune of $15.8 million -- all of us in this House should know that -- to women, and their children, who have been victims of family violence in their own homes and other places.

I would implore that all members of this House understand that these times are different, that all of us are going to have to work in our own communities, as the women stated on Monday morning at the meeting I attended, the coordinating groups. Most of us have some coordinating groups in our community. I implore everyone to get out there and help us because this is a time when women do need help, and all of us have a responsibility in representing them to make sure it takes place.

Ms Churley: Second-stage housing is more than a roof over one's head; it is a secure environment where women and children are able to access counselling services and other necessary supports.

Yesterday you went to great pains to assure this House and women in need that the housing would still exist. Minister, can you tell the House how second-stage housing will continue to operate without staff -- because you said yesterday the housing would still be there -- without counselling services, without proper security -- after all, these are battered women -- and procedures?

Minister, given all that your government has done in less than four months to harm women in this province, I would like to know if you see any point in continuing in your role as minister responsible for women's issues. Are you going to start speaking up for women, or are you there simply to justify this bad news to them and continue to tell women who are victims of violence --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Ms Churley: -- to get off their duffs and start taking more responsibility for themselves? Minister, when are you going to start speaking up for women?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I don't think there's anyone in this province or this House who doesn't know that the province of Ontario is facing tremendous challenges with regard to balancing our budget, creating an environment for investment so that women can become independent, so that women who are battered can leave their homes and have jobs and support themselves. In order to do that we have to have an investment in our economy.

We should also know that with these budget cuts -- and we're looking at 10% and 20% budget cuts -- in the area of violence against women we have taken a 2.5% cut and we are protecting programs to the tune of over $100 million to support 98 emergency shelters, core services in second-stage housing, $15.7 million for the counselling programs, and I could go on, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Wrap up your answer, please.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The member knows this, and I think it's her responsibility to go out there and do a better job with the money that we have saved and that we will protect to support women.

HOMOLKA CASE

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have previously risen in the House to ask the Attorney General a question with respect to the Homolka affair. I'd like to return to that topic for a moment, since the minister did not given us any effective answer last time; we'll try again this time.

Mr Minister, the Homolka case has caused great concern across this province. In the last week or so, since we've been in the House, we've received petitions virtually every day from the public asking you to review the case, as indeed we asked you to review the case at the beginning of this House.

Today, some 300,000 names were delivered to the Legislature by private citizens who, of their own volition and with their own free time and effort, gathered these from every corner of Ontario and indeed even across Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Ms Castrilli: Mr Minister, I ask you, in the face of this growing concern and in the face of the fact that you risk jeopardizing the institution of justice in this province, will you call for a review at this time?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, with responsibility for Native Affairs): As I tried to indicate to the member when she asked the same question a week ago, the issue that you wish to put to review is an issue that consists of a piece of evidence that's before a court, and the trial is still going on.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): You never accepted that when you were over here.

Hon Mr Harnick: The member from Windsor says I never accepted that. I think he should speak to his colleague the former Attorney General and she might explain this to him.

This is not an issue to make political, quite frankly, but the fact is that this matter is a piece of evidence before a court at this moment. The trial isn't finished. The sentencing is only beginning. There is an appeal coming, and for that reason I cannot commit to doing what you want to do.

I have indicated that I will be, as a member of the government, prepared to make a detailed statement, at the appropriate time, so that people understand exactly what this issue is all about, but I cannot and will not do it when it will prejudice the fair trial and completion of this matter.

Ms Castrilli: I'm absolutely appalled at the answer the Attorney General dares to give to this House. You know full well, sir, that the sentencing of Miss Homolka has nothing to do with the sentencing of Mr Bernardo, and any appeal will only deal with what's in evidence right now -- no new evidence; not Karla Homolka. The fact is that the people of Ontario require you to call an inquiry. Will you give such a commitment to the House and stop stalling us?

Hon Mr Harnick: I would very much regret if this particular case went off the rails because politicians tainted the evidence by calling it into question at a time when a court is weighing that very evidence. You, as a lawyer, more than most people in this place, should know and respect that. Accordingly, this is not an issue that I, as Attorney General, will take into the political realm. It should not be there.

The Speaker: New question, member of the third party. The member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Question period is in rotation. It goes from the official opposition to the third party.

Mr Wildman: I apologize to my friend across the way.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Could the minister explain to the House the methodology that he and his ministry are using for determining the actual expenditures on classroom teaching, classroom education, as opposed to expenditures by boards for administration and governance, as per the document the government ran on?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The honourable member should be informed that there is in the ministry a working group on education finance reform that is now investigating that very question, working with the federations, who will be giving me a report later this year.

Mr Wildman: I thank the minister for his response, but I find it a little puzzling that he would say they are now investigating how to do this when he already announced a cut this summer, assuring the people of Ontario that it would not affect classroom education.

Is the minister aware that Mr Drew Nameth, from his ministry, sent a memo to all superintendents of business of boards of education and separate school boards across the province in which he said that the ministry wished to have data from the boards by September 15 that would make it possible for them to identify the expenditures in classrooms as opposed to administration, but that in the memo Mr Nameth says, "In many cases the data are not compatible with the information required for this costing framework and the ministry has had to make a number of assumptions in prorating and otherwise manipulating the data to provide the best guess in time and resources available to the ministry"?

Surely the ministry and the government are not going to make decisions on funding based on guesstimates and data which are inappropriate and that need to be manipulated.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased that the honourable member notes that members of the Ministry of Education and Training staff are now working with boards of education in determining exactly what the costs are for in-classroom and what the costs are for administration. It's the goal of our government to spend money in the classroom, not in the boardroom, and we're making every effort in that regard.

REVIEW OF HOSPITALS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Health. There have been many upsetting reports of late that the Henderson hospital on Hamilton Mountain, the only hospital in the riding, is slated for closure. I'm wondering if the minister would please clear up this situation for all the concerned residents of Hamilton Mountain.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for asking a question that I know is on the minds of his constituents. This issue, this rumour, this speculation, was first brought to my attention through the media when the member across the way from Hamilton East said he could absolutely confirm that the Henderson hospital was to close.

I want to say to all members of this House today that there is a restructuring study going on in the Hamilton area. The NDP let that study at some $2 million. It won't report until about the middle of next year, and certainly I have no indication -- no one has any indication -- that Henderson hospital will close. In fact, somebody very close to the study, Susan Goodman, executive director of the district health council doing the study, said on September 28 in the Hamilton Spectator that she knew of no list of potential hospital closings.

"There has been no discussion about hospital closures at the health council or task force," she said. She goes on to rule out the rumour entirely. I've certainly not heard anything, and I trust that Ms Goodman, who's the executive director of the DHC, would know the exact status of the hospital restructuring in her area.

Mr Pettit: Back to the minister: Will the minister assure the residents of Hamilton Mountain that they will have meaningful input into the future of their hospitals?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Give us a guarantee.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, thank you to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. The purpose of the district health council, of course, is to be the ears, eyes and conscience of the local community. I'd encourage members of this House from that area of the province and their constituents to have meaningful discussions with the district health council, with the task force, in this case, and to make sure they have their say. Those district health councils are not politicians.

Mr Agostino: Give us assurances they won't close.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Wilson: They're made up of people from the community and have been in existence for some 20 years, charged with the responsibility of providing --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, take your seat, please. The member for Hamilton East is continually out of order, and I will not warn him once more. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: May I also say that Henderson hospital has a very, very important research component to its operation, and it's a very crucial component in cancer care in the Hamilton area. I'm confident that the district health council will consider the importance of the services it delivers in their restructuring study.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question this afternoon for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, you have very abruptly this week made some major changes in the provincial corrections system without making any announcements about these. This week you gave our halfway houses just a few hours' notice of their demise, forcing over 400 offenders back to jails. We now hear that you're planning on closing anywhere from seven to 17 correctional facilities across the province. Minister, will you confirm today that closing of jails is part of your agenda? Which facilities are you planning to close?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): At the outset I want to correct something the member just said, that we forced 400 people back into jails. That's not correct at all. There were a number of residents of community resource centres who did return to jail, but to suggest that we forced all 400 is totally incorrect.

In respect to the specific question, related to jail closures, we have made no decisions in respect to those kinds of expenditures. We're looking at all expenditures of my ministry, as we are across government, trying to identify core services. We're faced with some very difficult challenges in respect to the financial situation we found ourselves in as a result of the spending practices of the previous two governments.

Mr Ramsay: It appears, Minister, that you have no plan for our correctional facilities at all. There's no consultation going on, and you don't make any announcements when you do make a decision. You're right, they all had to report back to jail. Now many offenders are back on the street, and that's part of this problem. It really appears that the system is in chaos. As you know, there's overcrowding in our facilities from time to time. So if you're planning to close facilities, where are these offenders going to go? What assurances can you give Ontarians that there is a plan for all these changes and that our communities are going to remain safe?

Hon Mr Runciman: I want to say that the number one priority of this government is public safety, not the convenience of lawbreakers. I want to say that in respect to the jail closures, I've heard that rumour; it's been around for years. When I was in opposition, sitting across the aisle, the same facts were being circulated. Indeed, the NDP government at the time did move to make some closures of some of the old jails in the province. In fact, they closed the Perth Jail and Camp Hillsdale, I gather, about a year before the general election. Then, I assume because of the negative reaction of the residents of those ridings, both held by Conservative members, no further action was taken.

Those lists were developed, I understand, as a result of recommendations made by the Provincial Auditor in 1993 indicating that Ontario's incarceration costs are the highest in Canada. But I'm indicating to you, I'm indicating to all members of the House today --

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

Hon Mr Runciman: -- that we are reviewing all operations of my ministry. We have made no decisions in respect to jail closures. I will commit to communicating with the member and others if indeed we move in that direction --

The Speaker: Conclude your answer, please.

Hon Mr Runciman: -- prior to any decisions being taken.

CLOSURE OF HALFWAY HOUSES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. Today the minister repeated what he said yesterday, that his primary concern in closing community resource centres was the issue of public safety. He made a comment that the public wasn't as safe when people were in community resource centres because he had "no indication really of what they're doing while they're out there."

Would the minister please tell us how an electronic bracelet around someone's ankle is going to tell the minister and the staff in the Ministry of Correctional Services what they're doing out there when they're on that surveillance?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As I've indicated in the House previously, electronic monitoring is going to give us 24-hour surveillance, if you will, of individuals out on temporary absences, extended TAs out in the community. Again, in terms of safety of the public, it's going to be a much safer system in respect to the criteria we've developed.

The fact is that anyone applying, and this is purely a voluntary program -- I want to stress that again: a purely voluntary program. We will be monitoring their time out in the community in terms of -- it'll be a set schedule. If they're at work for eight hours a day, we will know the time they return to the residence. If, indeed, there is a concern -- and I don't believe there will be -- in respect to the kinds of offenders who will be allowed to go under electronic surveillance, we could consider a monitoring device in a workplace as well. That's a possibility.

We feel quite confident that this system is much superior to the system of halfway houses.

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

Hon Mr Runciman: At the same time, it is going to save the taxpayers of this province approximately $9 million annually.

Mrs Boyd: I'm glad that the minister feels that this is going to be safer. Knowledge is a much better thing than feeling about something that concerns public safety.

Last night, on CBC Radio's As It Happens, we heard about the experiment in Holland around this where they started very slowly, in fact, with two very, very carefully screened prisoners on electronic monitors, and they had a 50% success rate. One of those people was monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and was conducting a very lucrative drug trade because there was no way for the bracelet to tell anybody what he was doing, only where he was. Similarly, if people have been convicted of abuse of their families and they go back home, they're in their home, are they abusing their families?

It is very clear from the Dutch experiment and from the comments of the director of that experiment that without counselling, without a clear understanding of what people are doing, not just where they are from time to time, that this won't work.

The Speaker: The question, please.

Mrs Boyd: We have a minister here who has leapt off a cliff, has closed down successful programs that got people working, got them independent in the community, for a chimera, for a possible experiment that might start in January.

The Speaker: Would the member please put her question?

Mrs Boyd: I ask the minister, again, when he's closing jails, starting road gangs, cutting the allowance of convicts and closing community resource centres, and thinks in January there might be an electronic bracelet program, where is public --

The Speaker: Take your seat, please. You've been two minutes.

Hon Mr Runciman: Perhaps the member should go and talk to her NDP colleagues in British Columbia and Saskatchewan who've been running electronic monitoring programs for some time in a very successful way.

I don't want to get into specifics, because there are some legal matters pending before the Court of Appeal with respect to decisions, court matters related to issues that I can't talk about here in this House but that also have relevance with respect to the operation of halfway houses and how effective or ineffective they've been in respect to the monitoring of residents of those halfway houses -- some very, very significant concerns. For her to suggest that electronic monitoring is going to be less efficient than halfway houses simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I want to put on the record a quote from Mr Duncan Gillespie, a director of the John Howard Society. Mr Gillespie says: "There's nothing you're going to be able to do with inmates in six weeks or 12 weeks in a halfway house that's going to reduce risk. So either let them out now or keep them in. We're spending $10 million to $12 million a year to put them in there. It didn't make any sense." That's from a director of the John Howard Society.

We're doing what's right for public safety and we're doing what's right for the taxpayers of this province.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Etobicoke West.

Applause.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you. That's the second time in my life the NDP and Liberals ever applauded for me. I won't tell you the first time.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Attorney General. I am in receipt of the 300,000 names on the petition that were collected around the province by some petition organizers and workers. Let me just name them because I think they've done an outstanding job: Gillian Roediger, Maria Giuliette, Shirlie Eden, Gwen Hunter, Carolyn Iannoni, Cathy Johnston, Fiona Stewart and Rodney Elesie.

I just wanted to say, Attorney General, I understand your response to the first question and the question last week. I would like to pursue this on another level. We understand this case is still before the courts and I understand there could be appeals. I also understand that there are sentencing procedures to go through and I understand you can't comment on that.

What I would like to ask you is, with your knowledge of the system and the legal processes in this province, how long could this be in fact before the courts before you could potentially be able to comment on it? I guess I'm looking at an outside date to see how long it could be before the people of the province have an opportunity to see whether or not you consider a review necessary.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, with responsibility for Native Affairs): I thank the member for the question and advise that of course I'm aware of the public's concern over this matter and, as well, the concern of every member in this Legislature, and the question is a good one. I have indicated that I will, on behalf of the government, make a full and detailed statement at the appropriate time.

The issue is, as the member points out, when will that appropriate time be? It may be that the appropriate time will be once the sentencing of the matter is completed, if the matter of the appeal does not involve questioning those sensitive pieces of evidence. So if those sensitive pieces of evidence are not an issue before the Court of Appeal, it may well be that we can deal with this as soon as the actual sentencing and trial are over. If those issues continue to be issues before the Court of Appeal, that will make it more difficult and prolong the period of time before a public statement can be made.

But I hope and I tell the member that I will make that statement a full and detailed public statement as soon as I possibly can without jeopardizing the trial of this action.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General, but the rub for the public is this: The legal process is very time-consuming, and obviously a fair process for all concerned.

But the concern that I hear from people around this province is this: Our process can sometimes become so protracted, and this evidence could be used in further cases against Mr Bernardo, that the fear the public has -- and it's a real fear, I might add -- is that we will be caught up in the judicial process to such a grave and utmost degree that we won't be able to have the Attorney General go on the record to determine whether or not a review is necessary until, potentially, Karla Homolka may be paroled. That, to me, is not acceptable.

I put it directly to you, Attorney General: Could this happen, and if it is possible, can we look to you to see some action before that kind of thing takes place, to think that Karla Homolka is back on the streets and we're still fiddling around, talking about a review?

Hon Mr Harnick: I say to the member, a very good question. It would be improper for me to comment about issues pertaining to this individual's parole. What I am prepared to say is that at the earliest possible time, a full and public and detailed statement will be made.

I hope that the time period will not be protracted. I would hope that these proceedings will be completed. As I've indicated, the trial is still going on, but once that trial is complete, we will have a better idea of when we can make a statement so that you can have the information that you're asking for.

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE SERVICES

Just this morning, when I called your staff, they told me, "Integration facilities used by thousands of arriving immigrants in need will cease to function."

Minister, are you going to make this Premier out to be a liar, or have you discussed it with him in order to develop a comprehensive settlement strategy, or is this simply a slap in the face of immigrants, that they are no longer welcome in Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, Mr Speaker, let me start off by offering my congratulations on your appointment, and may I say this: I will make every effort and endeavour to make your task less daunting than the honourable members of the opposition and the third party seem to want to make it.

Since their establishment 22 years ago there has been significant growth in the number and maturity of organizations providing settlement services and language training programs to immigrants and refugees. With this infrastructure now in place, the province can responsibly withdraw from this area of direct service delivery.

Mr Ruprecht: The minister is reading a text. That wasn't the question. Will you develop a comprehensive integration strategy, as promised by your Premier? That was the question, but I'm going on to my next one.

The second promise this Premier made is also in writing. It says, "We will negotiate" -- that is your government -- "with the federal government to develop a federal-provincial immigration agreement which includes a new funding agreement."

My question to you is this: Did you talk to the federal Minister of Citizenship or the Prime Minister in order to develop this federal-provincial funding arrangement, or have you decided to make the Premier bite the dust again and scapegoat him in beating up on immigrants, who are really trying to become taxpayers of this province? Will you please answer this question? Because I think you're very penny wise and pound foolish.

Hon Ms Mushinski: Let me start off by saying that this government recognizes the importance of immigration settlement needs in this province and indeed we are committed to bringing forward an immigration settlement agreement negotiation process. Once the framework for that process has been developed, I'll be happy to share it with the honourable member.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. I congratulate her and wish her the best, but would remind her that it isn't just Bay Street that's watching, it's a whole lot of other people who are watching as well.

Madam Minister, I glanced through the Common Sense Revolution just the other day to confirm my original understanding that this document had nothing to say about culture, and it didn't surprise me. But you should know that the Canadian labour force study of 1988 and updates through Statistics Canada indicate that in 1994, in the GTA, arts and cultural industries combined employed more persons than utilities, transportation, manufacturing, business services, finance, insurance and real estate combined. Clearly, arts and culture benefit this province economically and our own cultural identity.

You have recently announced $32 million cut from Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and half of that was for culture. Minister, the question to you: Have you done an economic impact study that would tell us the effect these cuts would have on cultural workers and the economy in general?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you for the question, Mr Speaker, to the honourable member. Let me respond by saying that this government does indeed recognize that culture has a significant economic impact on the province, but the Ontario government must ease out of the business of signing blank cheques and get into the business of creating opportunity. We are doing this in partnership with our cultural stakeholders.

Mr Marchese: I say to the minister that she has done, in an unprecedented way, what most ministers have never done in the past. She has not consulted with anyone on these cuts.

I would remind her that culture is a wealth-creating industry. Between 1988 and 1992, in the depth of the recession, the cultural sector in the GTA grew by 9% in employment. The Ontario film investment program, which you chopped completely, and the Ontario Film Development Corp, which you cut in half, have been real success stories.

With a small investment of money by the government, you multiply the economic benefit to society many times over. Every OFIP dollar equals $8.30 in total film and TV productions activity in Ontario. OFIP-supported projects spent approximately 89% of their total domestic budgets on Ontario goods, services and labour. These budgets generate economic activity across a wide range of sectors.

For a government that is interested in the bottom line, can you explain to the people who are watching the wisdom of these irrational decisions?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Let me again respond to the honourable member that the province is still spending close to a quarter of a billion dollars on culture through my ministry. I would also like, in response to his question with respect to meeting with the representatives from the cultural community, to say that indeed I have met with all of the representatives and CEOs of all of the cultural agencies under my ministry.

PETITIONS

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have been asked by residents in the Niagara region to present a number of petitions dealing with the issue of the Karla Homolka plea bargain. The member for Etobicoke West will be presenting a large number on behalf of many people as well. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the conduct of all crown and law enforcement officials and employees at the levels involved in the investigation of Karla Homolka, and in particular the circumstances of the negotiation of the plea bargain arrangement. We also demand that all day passes and other privileges be revoked and her full 12-year sentence be served in its entirety."

This would be over 1,000 names that would appear in this petition. I know there will be a large number coming in from the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have today some 300,000 names on a petition that I'd like to read into the record. It's clearly the largest petition that I have ever read into the record, or seen read into the record, at least, in my brief stint here. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the conduct of all crown and law enforcement officials and employees at the levels involved in the investigation of Karla Homolka, and in particular the circumstances of the negotiation of the plea bargain arrangement. We also demand that all day passes and other privileges be revoked and her full 12-year sentence be served in its entirety."

I have attached my name to this petition as well.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This petition comes in conjunction with an announcement to have a demonstration in front of the Minister of Health's office on Monday at 12:30. The petition reads:

"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 the local members of provincial Parliament;

"We, therefore, 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 have signed my name to this document.

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I also have numerous signatures that I'd like to add to my friend from Etobicoke's list. I have 676 signatures, and it's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the conduct of all crown and law enforcement officials and employees at all levels involved in the investigation of Karla Homolka, and in particular the circumstances of the negotiation of the plea bargain arrangement. We also demand that all day passes and other privileges be revoked and her full 12-year sentence be served in its entirety."

These signatures come from my area.

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

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

"We demand a public inquiry into the conduct of all crown and law enforcement officers and employees at all levels involved in the investigation of Karla Homolka, and in particular the circumstances of the negotiation of the plea bargain arrangement. We also demand that all day passes and other privileges be revoked and her full 12-year sentence be served in its entirety."

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I also have a petition with a series of names to present and I attach my signature to this petition:

"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Reflect your children's future. This is a wake-up call. Transportation trailers can be made safer. We need reflective tape on all transport truck trailers. Make it mandatory; make it law.

"We, the people of Ontario, can make a change. Support the introduction of a bill. Please sign below."

HOMOLKA CASE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is the same subject but a different petition coming in from a different group of people. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, demand that Karla Homolka's plea bargain be revoked by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable Charles Harnick."

It is signed by a large number of people in the Niagara Peninsula.

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here that says:

"Reflect your children's future. This is a wake-up call. Transportation trailers can be made safer. We need reflective tape on all transport truck trailers. Make it mandatory; make it law.

"We, the people of Ontario, can make a change. Support the introduction of a bill."

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I believe the House leader would like to read a statement of the business for next week.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Before we do that, could I ask permission to revert to motions?

The Speaker: That's agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, October 11, 1995, it stand adjourned until 1:30 pm on Monday, October 16, 1995.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of October 9, 1995.

The House will not sit on Monday, October 9, because it is Thanksgiving Day.

On Tuesday, October 10, we will continue with the responses to the speech from the throne. The debate will wrap up with a vote at 6 pm. The parties have agreed that this will be a five-minute bell as opposed to the 30-minute bell in the standing orders.

Wednesday, October 11, will be an opposition day standing in the name of Mrs McLeod.

As per the motion just passed, there is agreement that the House will not sit on Thursday, October 12, for the NDP federal leadership convention, as has been the practice of the Ontario Legislature in the past.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Mr Speaker, I can't tell you what a pleasure it is for me to be here. It's certainly been a great opportunity for me to participate in yet another House, and it's certainly an opportunity to bring a bit of a different perspective to this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, it's been some 61 years, I believe, since an independent member was elected to the Legislature and I can certainly tell you I get a different perspective as I continue to move around the House here.

I want to thank the people of Elgin for that opportunity to be able to come to this Legislature and participate in all of these debates and participate in changes in government and changes in perspectives in legislation in this province.

I think being elected as an independent has sent a message, and a message to this Legislature as well, and it's a message of change. It talks about representation and it talks about constituency, and I was hoping to see in the throne speech some opportunity of being recognized in that capacity in terms of being able to have some of the rules changed. Hopefully they will be changed to give independent members an opportunity to speak freely in the House. I appreciate this opportunity to have these 10 minutes today to speak as well.

I want to, if I can, tell all members of the Legislature that I don't believe it's my job to be here just in opposition, just simply to oppose. I don't intend to take that tack and I think my constituents don't want me to take that tack. I think they want me to be here to put forth workable ideas, plans and solutions that will give the government the information it needs from the constituents of Elgin county. After all, I believe these people from Elgin county are their constituents, as well as all members of the House.

I want to, if I can, just touch on the throne speech, because I know it's a difficult thing to do. I had an opportunity in the past to participate as a member of the cabinet and a member of the government in developing a throne speech and I know it's not an easy thing to do. Lots of times throne speeches will seem to be or appear to be somewhat disjointed, because people are trying to put as much information into one as they can. Lots of times it's the things that aren't in the throne speech that concern you the most.

I see when I look at this throne speech a group of people who are a new government who are asking for understanding.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could we ask that we have some of our colleagues a little quieter, because we're having problems hearing over in this corner of the House and I'd like to hear the member's remarks.

Mr North: Then I can continue, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Please continue.

Mr North: I appreciate your understanding.

I want, if I can, just to speak to the throne speech because I think there are certainly a number of different perspectives in it that need to be addressed. As you look through it, you can see that the government is trying to move ahead. They're trying to move ahead with an agenda that they put forth to the people of the province and that they banked on and that they won on, and I think that's reasonable to do.

But what concerns me is the speed more than anything. I think that is an appropriate concern and I think it's a concern that I pass on from the members of my constituency. They see a lot of action in a very short time and they're concerned about the thought process. They look at it and they ask themselves -- it's not so much a concern about substance as it is about style, and the style has to do with the speed.

It's very difficult as a young government to govern. It's very difficult to bring issues forward, and it's always controversial. It's always difficult to move things ahead, and change is much more difficult than anything else. So I think they're asking for, and we're trying to give, some sense of understanding.

When I look at some of the issues that are in the throne speech, I concern myself with certain items, and the first that I'll speak to is the item of workfare, the item of the diminishing of a certain allowance for people out there who need that support. I can understand that the government feels strongly that they need to diminish those dollars in order to get the house in order, so to speak. But again, I ask them to look very carefully on the effect as a result of the cause.

It's important that they understand that if people can come forward with logical solutions, with logical propositions that will meet them halfway or that can help in some way to bring the private sector aboard -- because my concern is that there's not a bridge. There's not a bridge in this workfare plan; there's not a bridge in this diminishing of opportunities for people and the support for people. There is not a bridge between that aspect and the small business sector.

I look very carefully at home, and we are now pursuing some of those bridges and will be coming to my friend the minister and asking him to look at those as well. Incidentally, at home they're calling the minister Discount Dave now, just for your information.

So they look at welfare reform. They're also looking at another aspect, I might mention, of welfare reform, the issue in rural Ontario, because it seems to be a different issue in rural Ontario. I know many of the members across the House come from rural Ontario and they will share, I think, in this concern. The idea of workfare in rural Ontario has its problems in terms of transportation, in terms of various styles of work wear and in terms of day care etc. I think it's important that we not overlook those issues when we're looking at how to structure anything that has to do with people sort of working for their opportunities to have these services and support.

It also leaves a rather large question, if you're having municipalities deal with the idea of workfare, in terms of what they've presented to me as concerns with regard to workers' comp and how that factors into this process. I think that's a concern you've already heard as Speaker and heard as a member as well.

I want to wrap my speech up here -- I didn't have a lot of opportunity to speak today, just 10 minutes -- and I want to tie all of what's been done, all of what's in here, including the concerns that have been raised with regard to Bill 40, the concerns that have been raised with regard to the agricultural sector.

I see in here there's some discussion about repealing Bill 91. That's an issue at home, where farmers are saying, "If you feel so strongly about repealing Bill 91, make sure you place the exemption back into the law." They feel very strongly about that and they hope that's not overlooked. If you're to move ahead, the government and farmers, working together to try and come up with something they think is at least reasonable, make sure you do not overlook the exemption, because I think it's vitally important.

In this House, the work we do, the idea of creating jobs and hope, will be based on confidence, and the confidence people get will come out of this House and will come out of constituency offices and the mouths of the members who work here. I think it's vitally important, if you're going to complete the goals that you've set for yourselves, that you look very carefully at what you're doing in terms of confidence.

It's vitally important that there's consumer confidence, it's vitally important that there's confidence from the business sector, and it's vitally important that there's confidence from the labour sector. You're going to have to tie it all together. You're not going to be able to do it piecemeal. You're not going to be able to do it in a fashion that is exclusionary. It's vitally important that we build community confidence that we'll see across the board, and that will help ensure the productivity, the jobs and the concerns people are raising and bring them to the forefront.

As I've said, it's sometimes interesting, the things you leave out of a throne speech. There are a couple of things I want to note, which hopefully we'll be bringing in in the future.

The basic bottom line for me has been rural Ontario, and there's not a lot said about rural Ontario in this particular document. Another issue near and dear to my heart is agriculture. The minister has talked at length about the protection of agriculture, and I know he did in opposition as well. I'm hoping to hear a lot more about those protections for agriculture, because it's a huge business in my particular area.

I want to know how he's going to tie the work he's doing into property tax reform and working with Municipal Affairs and Housing. I think it's also very important that we hear from the Housing minister in terms of property tax reform, because I worked in the housing sector and I know that is one of the things that will make this economy rise and be prosperous again.

I'll end simply by saying that I look forward to this opportunity in the House. It will be an interesting opportunity as an independent member, and I hope to be able to work both with the government and with the other parties in this Legislature to do something in the way of bringing issues for Elgin forward and bringing confidence again for the people who live in the communities of Elgin county. I thank you for your time.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the citizens and voters of Hamilton Centre for re-electing me and having faith in the work I've done. I have considered it an honour over these years to represent the people of Hamilton Centre and consider myself very fortunate, in light of the political climate in which we all ran, to have been re-elected and do thank them most humbly for this opportunity.

I would like also to comment on what has happened to Hamilton as a result of the throne speech, the Common Sense Revolution and the decisions that have been made since the new government has taken power.

Our government, the previous government, made it a priority to ensure that a lot of older communities, such as Sault Ste Marie, Windsor and my own community of Hamilton, received the kind of attention and support they needed at a time when the recession in Ontario was ravaging much of the manufacturing basis that exists across Ontario, and that of course is usually particular to older communities.

We in fact invested -- not gave away, but invested -- more money in the five years we were in power than any other government in the history of this province, and we did it for very good reason. We made sure we were linking up in partnership with the community when we invested money in jobs and infrastructure so as to strengthen our community and prepare it for the future.

In my own community, much credit is due to the regional chairman, Terry Cooke, and Mayor Bob Morrow and their councils for the work they had done in the Renaissance project, in Vision 2020, the very strong leadership they've shown since the outset of the recession in identifying how our community could not only survive through the changes that were taking place, but also to prosper when the good times returned.

Mr Speaker, we did this in many different ways, and I say to you, sir, with great respect, through you to the opposition, that it was extremely disheartening -- not because they were our projects, because quite frankly they weren't; they were the community's projects -- quite disheartening to see the first decisions coming out of the new government gutting those projects, eliminating those partnerships, eliminating jobs, and lowering the opportunity for our community to survive into the future.

For example, we had an opportunity in the community of Hamilton to be the first United Nations university on environmental studies in North America. We put $5 million forward on behalf of the government of Ontario and it was ultimately matched by the federal government, as well as local money, both private and public.

That would have supported one of the cornerstones of the future of Hamilton; that is, environmental technologies and the application of new environmental technologies in terms of taking an older community that has a history of pollution problems and allowing it to convert that into a green economy that can be successful. This new Tory government killed it. They said that wasn't important.

They also killed a Barton Street renewal project, again the cornerstone of a community plan, supported by the regional council, supported by the city council, to turn Barton Street, in the heart of my riding of Hamilton Centre, into a hub of cultural activity, and, as my colleague said earlier in question period, creating jobs, supporting one of the fastest-growing economic centres in all of Hamilton-Wentworth, and they killed it. Not only did they kill it in terms of money that was already committed and in our budget; they now want that community group -- because it's not run by politicians, it's run by the community itself -- they want $1.1 million back out of the bank account.

This is money that was to be lent and paid back. This was money that was there to rejuvenate an older part of the city. This was a project that was there to provide jobs and to provide hope and encouragement to the future of Hamilton, its downtown core and the people in the cultural and arts community, who were prepared to roll up their sleeves and voluntarily provide the leadership that was needed to make that project work, and this government killed it.

Non-profit housing projects: I realize this government philosophically wants out of the non-profit housing business, but the fact is that there are thousands of workers, particularly construction workers, who wouldn't have had jobs through the worst days of the recession if we weren't building non-profit housing. And that's not just money spent on make-work projects, as some like to pretend it is. That's an investment too. It's an investment in community, it's an investment in people, it's an investment in families. They've killed all of them.

One, in fact, was at the very heart of downtown Hamilton, the Lister Block, which was a major project, in addition to the courthouse we built and the GO Transit centre. Mayor Bob Morrow, much to his credit, was leading the charge to make sure our government paid attention to that particular building, both because of its historical significance and its importance to the economy of downtown Hamilton, and we responded to that need.

We were prepared to make sure that building was preserved, that small business was put back into that area, and we would have provided housing in the downtown, which is an integral part of a successful downtown by any study or measure that one can find. This government killed it.

In fact, every decision that this government has made has killed jobs, not created them. They were jobs that would have been good for today and provided the economic stimulation that would have given jobs in the future. Instead, after we go through the hit on the poor, the hit on children, and now it's coming out every day in question period that women are paying the ultimate price -- I'm not suggesting that's a conspiracy, but I am suggesting that the projects and programs, the public support policies of this government, have the effect of disproportionately hurting women in this society. I think we'll be able to continue to prove that as the days unfold into this government.

When we ask the government, "What is it you're going to do that's going to create all these jobs?" the answer is, "The tax cut," the 30% tax cut, that this is going to magically provide all the jobs this government promised, some 720,000. The fact is that that's been tried. It's trickle-down economics, that if you give it to the rich, the benefits will trickle down to workers. It's old Reaganomics, it's Thatcherism. It didn't work there; it won't work here.

I'm going to wrap up to allow my colleagues their opportunity. The fact is that there are growing numbers of people in Ontario who haven't been hit by your cuts but who you plan to help through the tax benefit -- and as we know, any time you change the tax rolls the wealthy benefit more than the working; that's always been the case and that won't change, particularly with this Harris Tory government -- but more and more people are saying: "I know we have to make cuts and I know we have to make decisions, and I know they'll be tough, but I don't want to be benefiting from this.

I don't want money back when I see visions of children in need and families in poverty and the disabled having their services cut. I don't want that." I suspect some of them are seeing it as blood money, and they don't want that. I predict today that there'll be a growing number of people who will be telling this government day after day: "Don't continue to hurt people to give me a tax break. That's not fair."

"Fairness" is a word this government doesn't seem to understand.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Mr Speaker, let me also echo congratulations to you on your appointment.

I would like to take the time allotted to me this afternoon to look beyond the daily concerns that we discuss so thoroughly in this House. I'd like to address a few of the core issues that motivated me to seek this seat and also to speak to some of the very real hopes and concerns of the people of Scarborough-Ellesmere.

My riding is very much a microcosm of this province. It is rich with cultural diversity, innovative talents, skilled tradespeople and artisans. It is an intricately woven social fabric that presents its residents with an astounding array of opportunities and an inherent ability to meet the challenges that face us all. I do not believe that the people of Scarborough-Ellesmere are unique in asking their representative, as so many people have asked me over the past few weeks, what they ought to expect from government.

Everyone can see the waste, everyone can see the need for so much change, but what has become unclear to the residents of Scarborough-Ellesmere over the last decade is the relationship government has to their daily lives. Are we here to help or hinder? In short, it boils down to one simple question, asked over and over again: What are we here to do?

I think it's entirely appropriate that we enter into this discussion as we debate the government's throne speech. This agenda sets out very clearly the steps we must take and shows us just as clearly where we need to be. The cynicism that we all experienced as we brought our message to the front doors and town halls of this province is the result of politicians' unfulfilled and unfocused promises to solve any problem, in the government's domain and outside of it. These promises went unfulfilled precisely because they were unfocused. Because government failed to define its business, it could not hope to do its business well.

The people of Scarborough-Ellesmere have told me time and time again that they're tired of politicians who say government always has the answer. They've told me that government can serve them by getting out of the way more often than it can by spending more borrowed money on yet another ill-conceived, unwanted program. They've told me that government can make the way easier, but too often, in a clumsy effort to lend a hand, it clutters the path to success with insurmountable obstacles.

As a member of the cabinet I have a particular responsibility to carry the government's commonsense message to the issues that affect my ministry. The throne speech sets out very clearly some of the immediate actions that the government will take to bring its proper role more sharply into focus.

We will restore merit as the basis of hiring by repealing the Employment Equity Act and other quota legislation, getting government out of the business of telling employers who to hire and into the business of supporting equal opportunity.

We will repeal the Advocacy Act and will recognize government's proper role, alongside families and volunteers, in supporting the needs of the most vulnerable.

We will stop funding the seventh-inning stretch, because we honestly believe that people can stretch without our help.

And as we get out of those businesses in which the government has no role, we will focus on those areas where government quite properly plays a part.

In the longer term, reforms to the Human Rights Commission will improve its efficiency and allow it to better address the real cases of discrimination.

We are evaluating the constraints of overregulation with a view to encourage our agencies, like the Royal Ontario Museum, to more effectively serve its customers and to make better use of their human and financial resources.

I see my ministry as a partner in building opportunities. Government doesn't create art. We can't legislate a painting any more than we can purchase talent with tax dollars. What government can do is help to provide opportunities for the creativity and entrepreneurialism of our artists to flourish and to be recognized.

The government cannot unilaterally create jobs for women, the disabled and minorities. What we can do is support private sector efforts to recognize talent and ability wherever they exist.

The people of Scarborough-Ellesmere, like people in every community of this beautiful province, are concerned about jobs, and I'm delighted that the Premier has given me the opportunity to focus my attention and the government's attention on one of the fastest-growing job creators in Ontario: our cultural sector. This government understands that cultural industries have a significant economic impact on this province, and while we recognize the inherent value of the arts in our communities, we will not forget that cultural policy is also economic policy. Culture creates jobs.

I'm here today because the people of Scarborough-Ellesmere want major change, both in what our government does and in how it does it. They are not satisfied, nor should they be, to see deficit piled on deficit as the government drives away jobs with red tape and punishing taxes. They want to see government spend their money as carefully as they do.

As we refocus the business of government, implementing the priorities introduced in the Common Sense Revolution and reiterated in the throne speech, we must meet a higher standard of values. If we are to overcome the cynicism that has built up following a decade of overspending and mismanagement, every project must meet the test that I assign for my ministry's operations. Citizens must be able to point and say with pride, "My tax dollars paid for that."

I'd like once again to thank the people of Scarborough-Ellesmere for the trust and confidence they've shown in me, and I'd like to thank the Premier for giving me the opportunity to serve as a minister. As I conclude my first speech in this House, I'd like to reiterate my commitment to live up to that trust and to do my best to build a better Ontario.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, first of all, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to the speech from the throne, but before I do so I feel compelled to thank those who made it possible for me to be the MPP for Sudbury.

To the people of the Sudbury riding, I thank you for your support, your trust and the faith you've placed in me. A very special thank you to my wife Maureen, my children Angie and Danny and our extended families, who over the years have always allowed me the opportunity to fulfil my political dreams, whether they be in the area of recreation, in the area of federation or in the area of municipal or provincial politics. My successes have always been and will always be very, very special moments of shared love and satisfaction. To the superb group of dynamic individuals and friends who have worked tirelessly to get me here, thank you for your excellence and for your dedication.

Before I start my response I would like to comment on and recognize some of the great people of Sudbury, from all three parties, who have represented Sudbury before me, those like Elmer Sopha, my next-door neighbour for 30 years, Bud Germa, Jim Gordon, Sterling Campbell and Sharon Murdock. They have provided for me an excellent example which I will try to follow.

During the next several minutes I will try to respond in a Sudbury way to the dedication that I will try to bring to this House but also to respond to the direction this government has outlined its agenda to be in the speech from the throne.

The city of Sudbury is a part of the region of Sudbury, which is the largest municipality in northern Ontario. Science North, located within my riding, is a world-class, hands-on science centre which is the largest tourist attraction north of Barrie. Our city is a major medical referral centre for northern Ontario, providing specialized services through the Sudbury General Hospital, the Sudbury Memorial Hospital, the Laurentian Hospital, the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre and Network North, all within my riding.

The Sudbury neutrino observatory is an international high-science solar research project which invites international recognition within the world research community.

Sudbury is a city of firsts. Dr Paul Field conducted Canada's first heart bypass operation at the Memorial Hospital. The Sudbury region was the first community in Ontario to place an accessible taxi at the service of wheelchair passengers. Ours was the first city in Canada to use two-way radios in public works vehicles; the first city to use an electronically controlled traffic speed device; the first Ontario city to obtain the new telephone electronic switching system; and finally, the first Canadian city to have a privately owned television station.

Sudbury is the recipient of provincial, national and international awards, an award winner in land reclamation, including the planting of more than two million trees in the greening of Sudbury, which is recognized as an internationally successful operation.

Sudbury's Ramsey Lake was awarded the International Excellence on the Waterfront award and is the largest city-contained lake in North America, featuring both leisure living and recreational forms of enjoyment.

Our city has 30 named lakes within its boundaries and 90 within its region.

Sudbury is a city of excellence in education. Laurentian University, Cambrian College and the new Collège Boréal are all international models of educational institutions promoting excellence and preparedness for the 21st century.

My riding is a mecca of cultural diversity and the performing arts. The Sudbury Theatre Centre, Fringe North, Festival Boréal, Cinefest, the Snowflake Festival, the Blueberry Festival, the Garlic Festival and the Italian Festival provide a menu of inviting opportunities to experience the arts and culture of our city.

Sudbury is a classic example of the assimilation of multicultural groups coming together to form a common bond, a respect and tolerance of and for each other working together to be one, a strong single voice based on the strength of our different heritages and our different beliefs.

That, my fellow colleagues, is what Sudbury was and is.

Presently, the people of my riding are fearful of the direction of this government. We are fearful that the excellence of our health care services will be seriously eroded because of this government's direction, because of this government's cuts that weren't supposed to be but are. As the editorial in the September 29 edition of the Sudbury Star indicates in its title, "Harris Has No Mandate to Cut Health Care."

The Harris government's speech from the throne referred to individuals. Well, what about Michael Cousins, who's been fighting multiple sclerosis for eight years? Michael now fights two illnesses, that of MS and that of this provincial government, which is cutting his northern health travel grant.

Michael needs injections of betainterferon and has been taking

part in an experimental drug trial for betainterferon since 1988. Along with this, he requires an MRI scan. Sudbury has no MRI