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

October 8, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L041A - Thu 8 Oct 1998 / Jeu 8 Oct 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

CHILD CARE

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

CHILD CARE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

BREAST CANCER

TUITION FEES

EMERGENCY SERVICES

BRAMPTON BATTALION

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

UNITED WAY

HOSPICES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VISITOR

HOMELESSNESS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

HOMELESSNESS

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

HOME CARE

LONG-TERM CARE

YOUNG SEXUAL OFFENDERS

ONTARIO WORKS

GASOLINE PRICES

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

VEHICLE SAFETY

VISITORS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PALLIATIVE CARE

ROAD SAFETY

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

DENTAL CARE

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

OPPOSITION DAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

Mr Chudleigh moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario / Projet de loi 66, Loi proclamant le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste - Yom ha-Choah en Ontario.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I begin debate on my private member's bill,

An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario. This bill speaks to human rights, civic and moral responsibilities and democratic freedoms, which are the threads that connect all cultural communities worldwide.

What can we do to stand in solidarity with our fellow citizens who experienced these events first-hand? What can we do to stop similar events, such as we are seeing in the Balkans right now, from happening again? We can provide a day for the citizens of Ontario to reflect on the past, to consider the present and to prepare for the future. We can commemorate the victims of the most terrible genocide in modern human history and hold it out as an example to all people from which to learn.

This bill, if passed by this House, will designate an annual day of the Holocaust, or Yom ha-Shoah, in Ontario. This date, Tuesday, April 13, 1999, will be determined by the Jewish calendar. This bill will also help us focus on all events where people have been systematically destroyed due to race, ethnic background, religion or physical or mental disabilities.

Six million Jewish Holocaust victims were systematically deprived of their human and political rights and murdered between 1933 and 1945. In this century alone, genocide has been perpetrated many times, including in Rwanda in Africa, in the Balkans today, by Stalin in Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia and on the Armenian people.

During the Holocaust, not only Jews were targeted by the Nazis but people with physical or mental disabilities were killed. Others, including gypsies, were murdered because of their racial or religious background and still more because of their sexual orientation.

Canada, along with other Allied nations, took

part in the armed struggle to defeat Naziism and its collaborators. The Holocaust was an event that has touched the lives of all citizens of Ontario, especially those who fought during the Second World War who helped to liberate the inmates of labour and concentration camps.

It is important to note that most of the Jewish Holocaust survivors who emigrated to Canada settled in Ontario. For these reasons alone, I believe it is entirely appropriate to establish a Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario to commemorate the victims of the Jewish Holocaust and other state-sanctioned genocides.

Further, such a day would also provide Ontarians with an opportunity to reflect on these events. Citizens of a multicultural Ontario need to understand the enduring and profound lessons that these events teach and see the consequences of ignoring them. The first lesson is, never again. Never again can the world allow a repeat of the Holocaust. We have seen all too recently in Africa and in the Balkans today the consequences of ignoring this most important lesson.

Another lesson is that we cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or disabilities. Jews and gypsies, as well as the disabled, were seen by the Nazis as a serious biological threat to the purity of the Nazi ideal of an Aryan master race.

A third lesson is the necessity for us to defend democracy. This European Holocaust began soon after Adolf Hitler moved to end democracy and institute himself as dictator. Jews were forced out of the universities and public sector jobs, they could not attend public schools, they could not go to the movies or vacation resorts and they couldn't walk in certain sections of the cities.

Attacks and boycotts on Jewish businesses gave way to destruction of synagogues and homes and eventually to physical attacks. By the time the war began, Jews were second-class citizens. It must not be forgotten that each turn in a sickening spiral of the Holocaust occurred as one by one their human rights were stripped away. The lack of true democratic freedoms paved the way for these atrocities to occur. This theme runs through all examples of state-sponsored genocide, including in Stalin's Russia, in Pol Pot's Cambodia and against the Armenians.

Where individuals do not have a direct stake in their own government, they often abrogate their civil and moral obligations as well. However, some people recognize these obligations even while facing their fear. At this point, I'd like to remember the heroism of Raoul Wallenberg, Canada's only honorary citizen, who, as Swedish ambassador to Hungary during the time of the Second World War, saved the lives of over 100,000 Hungarian Jews and was himself deported to Russia by Soviet forces at the end of the war. To this day, we do not know the fate of Mr Wallenberg, whose goddaughter is a citizen of Ontario and resides in Toronto.

Another lesson we can learn is that citizens need to take an active role defending our society. These atrocities were carried out with the active help of local collaborators and the acquiescence or indifference of numerous bystanders. However, some bystanders, such as Mr Wallenberg, and members of various Resistance movements opposed the Nazi terror. There are other examples of heroism in these events, and let's hope that teaching the lesson of the Holocaust can inspire this kind of heroism in all of us.

The Nazi legacy was a vast empire of murder, pillage and exploitation. It is a legacy of ruined cities, lost generations and untold horrors. It is this legacy which must be understood by Ontarians as the price of a lack of interest in defending human rights and democracy and condoning racism and discrimination. The full magnitude of the Holocaust and its moral and ethical implications are only now beginning to be understood in full.

I'm convinced that an official provincial Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah is an appropriate way to honour the memory of six million Holocaust victims. We can remember this event in union with Holocaust survivors living in Ontario and people around the world who have experienced similar horrors or are now defending themselves against them.

The international movement for human rights also has its origins in the moral issues raised by the Holocaust. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights came about as a direct result of that movement, as did in 1962 our own Ontario Human Rights Code.

Finally, the ideals of cultural harmony and respect in a multicultural society also derive from the Holocaust experience. Multiculturalism is an ideal our society derived from the Holocaust, which espoused racial and cultural superiority and oppression of minorities.

Furthermore I'm proposing, as I believe to be entirely appropriate, that we declare a provincial day in accordance with the Jewish religious calendar on which Yom ha-Shoah, the day of the Holocaust, is observed. That day in 1999 will fall on April 13.

I hope on that day people in Ontario will reflect on the lessons that we have learned. I hope people in Ontario will remember the victims of the Jewish Holocaust and also the victims of other genocides, lessons which have evidently not been learned by the people in the Balkans, who are practising a form of genocide based on ethnic background.

Of all these examples of genocide, none is more important to an individual than the one which affected them personally. The Jewish Holocaust of 1933-45 was arguably the cruellest and most premeditated in modern history. The declaration of a memorial day to the Holocaust will remind each of us of our personal commitment to human rights.

It's been a privilege and a pleasure for me to consult with the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario region, and with the Holocaust Education and Memorial Centre of Toronto, UJA Federation, throughout the development of this piece of legislation. I would like to also thank Keith Landy, chair of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario region, Bernie Farber, the executive director, and the entire executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress for their support for this project. I would also like to acknowledge Moshe Ronen, the national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who is with us today.

I wish especially to thank Dr Carole Anne Reed, the director of education at the Holocaust Centre, and Hershel Sahian, the public policy coordinator of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario region, for the many hours of their time, which they gave willingly to help me develop this bill.

I thank everyone who has attended here in this House this morning - and I look forward to hearing your comments - for your support on this important piece of legislation.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): It's an honour to speak to this bill. I will of course be supporting it.

I first want to comment on the importance of commemorating the Holocaust. As legislators, we have a responsibility to take a leading role in ensuring that not only do we use the phrase "Never again," but that we take that attitude and make sure it is imbued in legislation and actions of this province, ensuring that this type of inhumanity does not occur, that it is confronted at every step. Ensuring that we never forget the persecution of the Jewish community that did take place in the Holocaust will lead towards those kinds of goals.

I'd like to recognize the efforts of the Canadian Jewish Congress, UJA, the B'nai Brith, the Yad Vashem Foundation, the Holocaust Education and Memorial Centre of Toronto and many others. Representatives from those organizations are here today, along with many leaders of the Jewish community. I'd like to thank them for coming here and marking this occasion.

Given the events of the past few days in this House, it's important, as legislators, that we also commit to educating our children about discrimination and what it can lead to even in its extremes. This government has promised many organizations that it will ensure the Ontario curriculum is such that our children are educated about the Holocaust, yet I'm personally embarrassed that we discovered yesterday that the Ministry of Education, under the leadership of the minister, deleted anti-racism and anti-discrimination measures from the provincial curriculum.

It's embarrassing to me as a legislator that there have been no steps to guarantee that our children are educated about the horrors of the Holocaust. I believe it should be entrenched in the curriculum, and I hope one day this minister and this government realize the importance of these measures.

I'd also like to comment, as the previous member did, on other instances of genocide. It was interesting to note that when Adolf Hitler was asked if he would be able to implement his final solution, his comment was, "Well, who remembers the Armenians?"

On April 24, 1915, a planned and systematic effort by the Young Turk regime was begun to eradicate the Armenian population in eastern Turkey. April 24 marked the 83rd anniversary of this event, an event, by the way, which has gone unrecognized by the Turkish government and much of the world. Until those types of recognitions are made, these wounds can never be healed, this type of action cannot be confronted.

It's critical that we learn the lessons from these kinds of events; obviously, as a people we haven't. We've seen events in the Balkans, in Rwanda; we've seen enforced famines. These are recent examples of a pattern of bloodshed and human tragedy that has taken place since those events in 1915.

I believe very strongly that recognition, however, is only a first step in ensuring that these events do not happen again. The Holocaust and other genocides and tragedies, instances of genocide, racism and discrimination, serve to remind us that we must work even harder to challenge hatred; we must work even harder to challenge racism and intolerance.

I am supporting Bill 66. I think it's an important first step but, as I said, a first step has to be measured and actions have to follow those steps. I think we can use a day in remembrance to speak up about these kinds of things and put our actions where our words are.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): First, let me indicate very clearly, very adamantly and without hesitation that we in the New Democratic Party caucus support this bill, this proposition, with great enthusiasm.

It's tragic - and I reflected on this as I was coming into Queen's Park this morning - that we're being forced, compelled to talk about what really is the unspeakable: the atrocity, the crime of the annihilation, the slaughter of six million Jews, along with so many others. along with political progressives; along with members of religious communities; along with the Roma, colloquially known as gypsy people; along with gays and lesbians; along with trade unionists.

The Holocaust, and the recognition and recall of that atrocity, must become an event - and this is where we agree so completely with this proposition - that becomes part of our community and our culture and our regular life here in this community of Ontario and across this country.

As we know and as has been noted, so many of those survivors, what there were, have come here to Ontario. We also know that these people are getting older and we are losing these people as living chroniclers of the horrible atrocity of the Holocaust. It then becomes incumbent upon us to ensure that that Holocaust is recalled and remembered and that we make a firm commitment to struggle to ensure that it indeed never happens again.

I suppose Holocaust Memorial Day is a day of reflection, a day of grieving, but it's also a day for celebration of the courage of those people; the courage, for instance, of the 60,000 Jews left in Warsaw in April and May 1943. There had been 400,000 Jews contained in Warsaw, behind walls, and in April and May 1943, the 60,000 - that's all that was left - unarmed, stood together and stood against the Germans and their collaborators, under attack by flame-throwers, German troops, armoured cars and tanks.

We also have to recall that Allied governments did far too little to aid those Jews, be it those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto or in the Vilnius ghetto or in the Bialystok ghetto, along with so many others.

We also have to recall the tragedy, a very dark period in our own national history when this country not only didn't do as much as it ought to have done and could have done to assist those Jews who were rising up against Nazi oppression, but also didn't open our doors to those Jews who were in flight, seeking refuge outside of their own countries. It's an unpleasant recollection for us to have to make as Canadians, and there are other nations that have the same dark period in their own histories, but we have to recall how we shut doors to Jews whose fate was going to be, among others, the camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I was at Auschwitz-Birkenau a few years ago. Hundreds of thousands of people visit that place every year. I was among groups of people who were representative of every nation on this earth. I tell you, it's a grey, silent, solemn, sad and incredibly moving testimony to the reality of the Holocaust. Being a participant in that monument to oh, so many victims is something I would tell others is so compelling and indeed serves to etch in one's own consciousness the reality of that Holocaust.

I speak to that because you know there are people in our community who would dare deny the Holocaust and the death of six million Jews, along with so many others.

The support of this bill and, as has been noted, the commitment to a recognition of that day in our Legislature, in our schools, in those places where people gather in communities across this province - the recognition of that day, a remembrance of that day, a taking heed of that day is, as it should be, an imperative message to those who still in our community would promote Naziism, Fascism, anti-Semitism, the irrational, perverted and distorted hatred that gave rise to and sustained the Holocaust in Europe, and indeed that gives rise to and sustains atrocities against humankind in other parts of the world and atrocities which persist and occur even in this day and in this time.

The recognition of a day of Holocaust memorial is a statement, an affirmation of the innocent lives - the children, the old people; it's just far too many, and one was too many - who suffered at the hands of hatred and anti-Semitism, racism, Naziism and Fascism, and must serve us as more than yet another day on the calendar, but must serve us as a commitment to reaffirming in our own country and in this province our respect and indeed our celebration of our cultural and religious and linguistic diversity, that should serve to remind us of the need to keep our doors open as a country and as a community to people who in 1998 are persecuted in their homelands in, again, far too many places in the world, of a need for us to show a generosity of spirit and an embracement of humankind which, once again I say to you with some great shame, was denied so many Jews in Europe during the period of that Holocaust.

We have some atonement to do. I say that seriously and sincerely. We have some atonement to do, not for what we didn't do; for those who died at the hands of Naziism and their collaborators.

The Holocaust Memorial Day can be a day of recall, of remembrance, of celebration of the courage of those people slaughtered by Nazis and Fascists and their collaborators, of the courage of the Jews who rose up and fought back, and a commitment to not only ensuring that it doesn't happen again, but that those who would advocate it understand that an advocacy of that type of hatred will not be tolerated in our community, that it is not acceptable and will be challenged, will be confronted, will be exposed, will be attacked and will be overcome.

There has been recognition of so many organizations, but I want to give some specific appreciation to Hershel Sahian from the Canadian Jewish Congress, who was generous with his time in ensuring that people were aware of this bill this morning and ensuring that all members of this Legislature had material before them that would enable them to understand how important this bill and its goals are.

We, in this century, were witnesses to an effort that, because of the incredible efficiency, the cold, brutal efficiency of the slaughter of Jews and others, was almost a complete annihilation of a people. That is indeed a frightening observation. Surely one is too many; six million is enough to have this burnt and etched into our memories as a community forever.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm pleased to rise today and have an opportunity to take

part in this debate and to acknowledge Mr Chudleigh, the member for Halton North, who is advancing this bill, and of course to express my support for it and to acknowledge the work that went into this and the importance of this for the people of Ontario. I can't say it much better than Mr Chudleigh or Mr Kormos just did.

When I look at my experience in this place, I'm very proud of the contribution that the Ontario Legislature makes to the lives of people in Ontario and for the recognition a long time ago of the need to remember the unspeakable atrocities of the Holocaust. Some time ago in this Legislature, I guess back in 1991, with the support of the member for Wilson Heights, Mr Kwinter, I began to acknowledge the accomplishments of many of the individuals who survived the Holocaust who live in the province of Ontario.

I'm happy to say that we've received support from all parties, very widely, for that initiative to recognize the contribution that survivors of the Holocaust have made to the life we so cherish in Ontario.

We've had the opportunity every year since that time - initially it was done by my sponsorship; it was ultimately taken over by the former government and became a government-sponsored event and it has continued. I'm pleased to say that Premier Harris has been involved in this from the outset. I want to acknowledge the former Israeli consul-general, Dror Zeigerman, who was very instrumental in helping us begin this day of recognition, and now this day is going to be officially recognized upon passage of Mr Chudleigh's bill.

Certainly on each of those occasions on which we have acknowledged the contributions that have been made by people who were survivors of the Holocaust, we as well acknowledged and honoured the families representing the righteous among the nations who attempted, sometimes successfully, to save Jews from the slaughter of places like Auschwitz. We have done that as well, and that's a very important acknowledgement and important part of remembering the Holocaust.

The real importance of this, and Mr Kormos touched on it, is that we're now 53 years past the end of World War II. Even someone who was a small child who may have survived the atrocities of the Holocaust is now part of an aging population. It is important that we do everything we can in this Legislature and in this province to perpetuate the memory of all those who perished in this unspeakable atrocity that occurred.

We have an obligation, and I congratulate every member of this Legislature, particularly Mr Chudleigh, for doing whatever we can to perpetuate the memory because what we are perpetuating is the memory of six million people who died, who perished, who left this earth with no monument and no marker to acknowledge that they ever existed. Thank you for doing it.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'll only be speaking for a couple of moments. But I want to tell the members across the way and particularly the member who introduced this that it is important, that it will get the support of this side of the House, that indeed we should never, ever forget and indeed we should remember with passion the way the Attorney General remembered with passion and with devotion and with dedication to ensuring this will never happen again.

In order to do that, the Attorney General suggested that there should be unique ways to ensure it's always brought to the forefront. The Toronto Jewish Film Society and the Italian Cultural Institute, along with the Bloor Jewish Community Centre and the Bathurst Jewish Centre, will be showing, next Thursday, October 15, at the Leah Posluns Theatre at 4588 Bathurst Street in North York, will be proudly presenting, The Righteous Enemy. It is a rarely shown moving documentary about the little-known efforts of Italian soldiers and diplomats to protect 40,000 Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.

This was a very proud time with the Italian and the Jewish cultures, when we came together to protect what we considered to be treasured and precious, and that's life. I encourage and thank Ethel Teitelbaum, who is organizing this with the different groups. I encourage you to come out next Thursday at 7:30 and listen and learn from the film so that what we know is right and what we know must always be the forefront of anything we do, the protection of life, the assurance that this horror will never, ever happen again.

I commend the member. I also commend those in this House who will speak with passion.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This morning I also want to give thanks to the member for Halton North, Mr Chudleigh, with the rest of the House, for bringing before us this day an opportunity to reflect, if only for a moment, on a theme that is universal and has some tremendous importance for all of us, to reflect, if only for a moment, on the face of evil as it exists in the world, as it existed in those days when so many people lost their lives needlessly in such an unimaginably terrible way.

Robert Burns in a poem says:

Many and sharp the num'rous ills

Inwoven with our frame!

More pointed still we make ourselves

Regret, remorse, and shame!

And Man, whose heav'n-erected face

The smiles of love adorn, -

Man's inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands mourn!

When you read a poem like that and you listen to a group such as the one I listened to not so long ago in Sault Ste Marie, a group of survivors of the Holocaust at the place of gathering for the Jewish community in that city, and you hear the stories and you see the pain in the faces, you wonder to yourself, how could this happen? How could this have happened then? How can it possibly happen again? How can we not have put in place those checks and balances that would stop that from happening again?

I know in my own life, when I take the time to reflect in the quiet of someplace where I can get in touch with the power of God in my life and I have the courage to look deep inside and for just a moment try to figure out why it is that I respond sometimes in a way that is not in keeping with my wont and I do things that hurt others, I touch ever so shallowly a reservoir of energy there that I have discovered I can use in my life for tremendously wonderful and great and positive achievements in the world.

But I can also choose, if I'm not careful, if I'm not thoughtful, if I'm not in touch with my community, those people around me who love me and care for me and support me, to do some very destructive and damaging and evil things. We all have that potential.

When that potential is put together in community, we can do things that in reflection afterwards will make us all wonder how and why and, for goodness' sake, is there anything we can do to stop this from ever happening again?

So it's important that today we take this opportunity, led by Mr Chudleigh, in this place to say once again that we must remember, and in remembering we must say no to that. We must say no to that part of the human reality that might give rise to such an occasion again.

I end with some thoughts from another person who spent some time in jail fighting the forces of evil, Vaclav Havel. He says, "There is only one way to strive for decency, reason, responsibility, sincerity, civility and tolerance, and that is decently, reasonably, responsibly, sincerely, civilly and tolerantly."

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am very pleased to rise in support of my colleague's bill, the Holocaust Memorial Day Act. I have always personally believed very strongly that we in this province should officially recognize Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah, in order to commemorate those who suffered in the Holocaust, but also to provide us with an opportunity to celebrate the survivors of the Holocaust.

I want to recognize the many contributions that the Jewish community has made to Ontario and to our community, and especially to my community in Hamilton. Part of the Jewish community's events in Hamilton is a tribute to an individual or family in our community through the Negev dinner. I'm very pleased to be allowed the honour of sitting on that dinner committee this year and helping in their efforts. The Negev dinner pays tribute not only to an individual or a family who have given of themselves to their community and to the state of Israel, but also allows an opportunity to raise community awareness about the state of Israel and about the needs of that community.

From the agricultural efforts, such as the wonderful, beautiful farmland that currently exists in the Negev desert, to the achievements and support of academic institutions in my community, the Jewish community continues to achieve great things for Ontario and Israel through their hard work and continuing efforts.

This proposed bill affects each and every one of us. Holocaust Yom ha-Shoah represents the bleakest, darkest era in the history of human mankind.

I want to speak particularly about the children. Of the millions who were murdered, 1.5 million were children. These children ranged in age from infants to teenagers; children who came from every walk of life, from different families, different backgrounds, different religions and cultures. Some were rich; some were poor. Out of all the differences they had, they had one thing in common: By the 1930s, with the rise of the Nazis in Germany, they were all potential victims. For them, this ended an era in their lives, and their lives were forever changed.

Many children were forced to live in ghettos. Many of them suffered under horrible conditions. Typically, many families were crowded into a few small rooms, with little or no heat or food and certainly no privacy. Many in the ghettos perished from malnutrition, starvation, exposure and epidemics.

Some children escaped deportation to the ghettos by going into hiding, with or without their families, aided by non-Jewish families, friends and neighbours. Children who did find refuge with others outside the ghettos had to assume different identities, and they had to conform to the local religious customs, which were different from their own, in order to survive.

One case that was somewhat different and that I want to point out was the case of two Polish Jewish children. I bring that to light because I come from a Polish background as well. These two Polish Jewish children were taken in by a Polish family in Krakow and were hidden there for a great deal of time. After many months, the family decided they wanted to adopt these children and have them baptized in their Catholic religion. They approached their priest, who advised them that they should wait in case the family should survive and should turn up to reclaim their children.

The family waited, and the priest said he would pray for the family and for the reunification of the family. Eventually the family did survive the ghetto and did come back to join their children. That's a remarkable story. That parish priest went on to become the Archbishop of Krakow and today is Pope John Paul II.

As we debate the passage of this important bill, let us do so with those child victims of the Holocaust in our minds. Let us make this day of Yom ha-Shoah a tribute to them and to the survivors, many of whom live in Ontario. We are all the beneficiaries of their contribution to our society. We must reach out to receive the suffering children of the world today. We must remember the tragedy of those countries that refused to hear the cries of the suffering children of 1933 to 1945. Let us at least begin with Yom ha-Shoah and with the silent prayer that ends with the words "Never again."

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I certainly would like to congratulate the member for Halton North for bringing this forward, because this helps tell the story that six million people could not tell.

I just want to read a poem from Primo Levi, a survivor of Auschwitz.

In the brutal nights we used to dream

Dense violent dreams,

Dream with the soul and body:

To return; to eat; to tell the story.

I think this is what this bill helps to do, to tell the story. As the Attorney General said, we are now 53 years away. Those of us who are old enough perhaps can remember from what we experienced or from what others have told us. The problem is the children who come. What will they know about the story? That's why I think it is obligatory for us as legislators, as teachers and as adults to make sure the story is told of this horrible episode in history. We cannot allow it to be lost, and it will be lost, because we find too little time to teach history and to know history.

I had the good fortune of being a history teacher and I had the good fortune of having help back in the late 1970s from Ruth Resnick from the Canadian Jewish Congress, who helped me develop a curriculum for teaching the Holocaust to high school students.

I can remember the only available material at that time was a National Film Board of Canada documentary called Memorandum, which talked about a gentleman from Toronto who went back for the first time to the concentration camps and took a group with him.

We have to tell the story to our children, and that is what I hope we will do through our curriculum, through our educational system, because we cannot let the six million people die totally in vain. That is our obligation, and I think this Bill 66 does this.

We must make the link to reality, because this is not a faraway, oblique thing. We know the story of the SS St Louis, the ship filled with Jewish people who tried to get out of Nazi Germany. They were refused entry in the States, refused entry in Cuba. They were refused entry in Canada. That's the dark side of the story we must also tell to remind everybody that this wasn't an isolated event that occurred in some far-off time in a far-off country. This is a human story of human tragedy beyond proportion and belief, and that is the linkage we must make to our young people.

It can happen again if we don't learn from history to ensure that it does not happen again. I think Mr Chudleigh's bill and the efforts of the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and all these organizations should join with us in ensuring that the story is told over and over again, because we all know of the deniers who are out there. They will not go away, and that's why we have to recognize Yom ha-Shoah and make it important for us, and especially for the children, to not forget.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Mr Speaker, 15,000 children passed through the camp of Terezin from 1941 to 1945. One hundred survived. One who did not was Frantisek Bass, born in 1930 and deported to Terezin in 1942. He was murdered at Auschwitz in 1944. He left a poem, which I'll read:

A little garden

Fragrant and full of roses

The path is narrow and a little boy walks along it

A little boy, a sweet boy

Like that growing blossom.

When the blossom comes to bloom

The little boy will be no more.

Six million little boys and girls and men and women

Six million of our cousins,

Who by the whim of monsters are no more.

I'm privileged to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and at the outset want to compliment my colleague the member for Halton North, Mr Chudleigh, on this important initiative.

The symbolic importance of this bill is quite meaningful to everyone in my constituency, but undoubtedly it's of special importance to the significant and vibrant Jewish community, not just in Nepean but indeed throughout Ottawa-Carleton, a people who have contributed so much to our community over the years, many of whom lost a loved one or a family member in the Holocaust. I have constituents who lost a mother, lost a father, an aunt or an uncle.

The most startling nature of the tragedy of the Holocaust in one respect is that an entire generation never got to know their grandparents, who were murdered in undoubtedly the most horrific circumstances imaginable. It is our responsibility to ensure that this never happens again. Never again. The most meaningful tribute we can pay as a community and as a society is to work against this evil among us.

Tragically, accidents in Cambodia and in the Balkans today, as we sit here and speak, continue. Tragically, a small number continue to try and perpetuate the vicious lies of denial. Tragically, a small number continue to perpetuate hate in our society. We must all speak up against it and work to eliminate it from our society.

Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Israel, and the most sobering experience was visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and museum. It was undoubtedly one of the most shocking and horrific tales that could be told. One of the most meaningful things for me was to see a glass case of 3,000 eyeglasses taken from victims - 3,000 of six million - and to think about each of the owners of those eyeglasses.

The museum details a very meaningful and important accounting of the lead-up to the Holocaust that perhaps is even more important than the Holocaust itself, where the state - not a group in the state, but the state itself - led a campaign to inspire hatred and then violence against its own citizens of Jewish descent. I was shocked to learn the small percentage of the German population who were Jewish - very small.

This bill, albeit small, is nonetheless symbolic in a meaningful way, and it provides an important opportunity for all of us to reflect and educate ourselves and, most important, as the member for Oakwood said, the next generation, about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust, to ensure each and every year that we commit ourselves not just as individuals but collectively as a society to work to ensure that we will not tolerate hatred and that we will not let this happen again. Never again.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to lend my unqualified and enthusiastic support to Mr Chudleigh's bill and to say that I think it will serve an important purpose. Every year I visit with members in the Armenian community on April 24, and they recognize a genocide that took place 83 years ago, when 1.5 million Armenians - men, but a lot of women and children - were killed. The world community essentially was by and large silent on that.

Hitler once said, as he began to plan his atrocities, something like, "Who today remembers the Armenian genocide?" In other words, the world community simply ignored a genocide. What we had was a despicable act, six million men and, as we know, many women and children, systematically killed.

It started initially with economic sanctions. The world community to a very large extent - not exclusively, but to a very large extent - was silent. Hitler continued his plan, which then became physical abuse, and then it became genocide and, as I say, to a very large extent the world community was silent. There were heroes there, but overall far too silent.

Today, Mr Chudleigh's bill is to try to make sure that never again are we silent. By the way, I would say that the B'Nai Brith League for Human Rights is probably a model for us. Whenever I see a human rights violation in Ontario, the first group to respond to it is B'Nai Brith League for Human Rights. Often it's not a popular issue, but there they are. If we want to have a model, watch what they do. There was a group of refugees in Scarborough, actually, who were in motels awaiting hearings on whether they'd be allowed to stay in Canada or not, and some skinheads began to picket them. The B'Nai Brith League for Human Rights responded instantly to that.

That's another purpose of this bill of Mr Chudleigh's: to make sure that all of us together respond and that we have the courage that when we see an abuse of human rights, there is an overwhelming response against it.

I have my own view of Canada. I view it as like a flower garden of people. Initially, there was one flower in this garden. Those are our First Nations. Then, over the history of Canada, we've been fortunate to attract flowers from around the world. I happen to think perhaps some of the best have come from other countries, to provide the most beautiful flower garden in the world. We are a diverse nation of many, many, many cultures, religions and races.

The flower garden has to be fertilized. But like any flower garden, weeds creep in. One of the purposes of this bill is to make sure that when we see a weed of racism, of discrimination, of abuse of human rights, we remember the Holocaust as a tribute to those six million people and that all of us will respond together to weed that weed out of our garden and to make sure that this continues to be the most beautiful flower garden in the world.

I appreciate your bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have two minutes to reply.

Mr Chudleigh: I want to thank all of the members of the House but also particularly those members who spoke so eloquently on this subject today.

The times when holocausts have taken place throughout history are indeed a sad

chapter in human history. Of all the examples of genocide, none is more important to an individual than the one that affected them the most.

I thank all of you for your very kind remarks today in the House.

CHILD CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tilson: Over the years, the definition of "family" has gone through drastic changes. The nuclear family of the 1950s is no longer considered the norm. In order to meet the challenges of today's economic and social realities, families have had to adapt. It is safe to say that there really is no "normal" family. Today we have single parents working or furthering their education; we have double-income parents; we have single-income parents where one parent stays home to raise the children; and the list goes on. All of these types of families should be honoured and respected for the choices they have made.

With this diversity in today's working families, it is clear that one form of child care is not enough. These families cannot fit into one mould. The Ontario government is responding to this challenge. Earlier this year the Honourable Ernie Eves, the Minister of Finance, announced a budget that would hold great significance for families all across Ontario. A minimum 30% tax cut rate was announced, an improved and expanded child care supplement for working families was announced and, finally, a workplace child care tax incentive was announced.

The 30% tax cut rate will relieve all families regardless of the choices of daycare they have made. The child care supplement for working families will also provide savings and choices. This supplement is available to assist all low- and middle-income families regardless of whether they have double incomes or a parent attending school or whether one parent stays at home to care for their young children. This government is responding to the needs of today's working families.

A two-earner family with two children having an income of $37,000 will save up to $2,810 with the tax cut and child care supplement; a single parent with two children and an income of $32,500 will save up to $3,855; and finally, a one-earner family with two children earning $34,500 will save up to $3,115.

Why are these figures that I have just read important? They show that our government is providing the necessary assistance to meet the needs of today's working families without bias. With the workplace child care tax incentive, child care at one's own place of business has even been made more accessible to families. These kinds of incentives provide today's families with a number of options when it comes to how they choose to raise their children, and it is clear that this government also recognizes that at-home child care is an honourable profession worthy of recognition.

The current federal tax structure, on the other hand, is biased and unfair. The federal government does not recognize at-home child care to be honourable, and they have arranged their tax and benefit options accordingly. The federal child care expense deduction, for example, can provide $3,000 per child between seven and 16 and $5,000 per child under seven. However, one-earner families are not eligible for this deduction and it is assumed that stay-at-home parents incur no child care expenses.

Activities such as hockey camp, drama or music camps, play schools and nursery schools may also be claimed by double-income families. Double-income families can also claim wages to a child care worker while a parent is on maternity leave, this being necessary to ensure that the worker will still be available once the parent returns to work.

In fact, this federal deduction is even designed to have an inverse relationship to need. Unlike the Ontario provincial supplement designed to assist low- and middle-income families, child care expense deduction benefits increase as the family income increases. For instance, a reduction of $5,000 of taxable income to a family in a 17% tax bracket would mean a savings of $850; however, this same reduction to a family in a 50% tax bracket would mean a savings of $2,500. Once again, I remind you all that this deduction is available only to those who choose child care out of one's own home.

While subsidized child care is extremely important for those families who need or want it, it cannot be the only option. Child care expense deduction provides an obvious incentive to seek child care outside the home. For families who need the assistance of this deduction, the federal government is essentially making the child care choices for them.

While I'd argue that the tax programs designed to allow both parents the option of entering the workforce are necessary, I would also argue that the system that forces parents into this arrangement is wrong. Obviously the child care expense deduction is not provided to cover food and clothing expenses for children. It is meant to cover the expense of going to work and seeking child care services for your family. However, it should not be assumed that a parent who chooses to stay at home to look after the children does not incur child care expenses. Hopefully we will all agree that forgoing an entire income in order to look after your children is a great expense.

There are those who would argue, on the other hand, that if a parent chooses to stay at home it is because the family is economically sound enough to do so. However, this is another assumption that should not be made. According to Statistics Canada, one-income families earn less money than dual-income households, a gap that has been widening over the years. The same source also states that dual-income families also spend more on restaurant meals, appliances and family vacations.

One must also consider the families who aren't necessarily choosing to have one parent stay at home. There are some low-income families who are unable to afford child care outside their home. That's why the Ontario government still provides the child care supplement to families even when the care is occurring in the home. However, I remind all members that the same is not true with the federal government. Then again I also remind you that the federal government's child care expense deduction isn't really designed to help low-income families.

What can the province do? What can we do to put an end to this inequitable taxation system? I am certainly not the only person to debate this issue of tax inequity. It has been going on all over the place. In fact, the need to recognize the role of a parent in the home as a valid child care provider within the taxation and pension systems is currently a highly debated issue.

The federal Liberal caucus committee on social policy has tax treatment under consideration regarding the issue. Policy matters relating to stay-at-home parents have recently been put under review. Several members of Parliament from a variety of parties have spoken on this and other related issues in the federal House of Commons. Why then is there a need for our government to take a stand on this important social issue? Because the changes have yet to be made. A reporting time frame for the federal Liberal caucus committee has yet even to be established. Clearly now is the time to show our support for these much-needed changes.

The people of Ontario have the right to choose how they wish to raise their children. They have the right to decide what arrangements will best suit the needs of their own families. It's therefore wrong for federal child care benefits to so unfairly direct parents to make the choices they may otherwise not have made. Until these changes have been made, the federal government is making the important decisions for families. Evidently from the federal government's point of view, Canadians do not have the right to make these choices.

So what can be done? Obviously making the child care expense deduction available to all families with children is a step in the right direction. However, it does not address all the issues. In fact, it's designed to provide greater savings for those families with lesser needs; it does not address the needs of the lesser-income parents, and that issue needs to be looked at as well.

What remains the important issue is that the lower- and middle-income families need to look after their children and they need to be able to decide for themselves how they want to do that. We cannot allow the federal government to interfere with how these choices are made. It's time for us to lend our support to all those parents demanding choice and equality.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm happy to speak to this motion today and I think I should say at the outset that I believe the member who is advancing this motion does have a sincere need to see that daycare opportunities are there for parents who need them. I think he is on record for some time now as being a personal advocate for children and I believe he is being sincere.

Having said that, I must go on that regardless of his own personal intent with this motion today, the government's record is all too clear in the area of child care, like daycare, here in Ontario. Over the last three years we have seen extraordinary difficulties being faced by Ontario families. We have to put this in the context of the policy the government has advanced over the last three years, what we know is happening just in large urban settings like Toronto, and that is that the daycare spaces that exist in Toronto today are fewer and the lineups longer than they have ever been.

When we see individual MPPs standing up for children and for daycare and for care for children, we would only ask that the caucus that advances that be consistent in that regard.

As an example, today we are having debates daily about the changes in education. Because of the government advancing the new school funding formula, this has had a direct impact, not just on children in education but indeed in daycare. Where we have families who have had consistent and stable daycare opportunities for the children in schools, what we're seeing now with the new funding formula is that school boards are making choices to charge rent to the daycare centres that exist in their local schools.

When parents choose daycare, their first option always is, "I wish I could stay home myself with the children." Having said that, if they cannot be home with the children, they are choosing, if they can, well-regulated, high-quality daycare. What we know is that's what parents want. What we know is that since this government took office it has been more and more difficult for parents to have that opportunity.

What's quite interesting in the debate about child care is that this is the government that advanced, through various papers that were eventually leaked to the public, the consideration of vouchers for child care. Our greatest concern over the last three years has been the consideration that you may be weakening the daycare act so that you would be weakening the regulations that surround child care centres.

We had great concern with that and the Ontario public should have great concern with anything that will advocate spending Ontario taxpayers' money in anything other than highly regulated child care centres. We say that because that is what parents know. We have had example after example in our province where parents have taken their children to daycare centres with the full knowledge that their children will be cared for as they would care for them at home. What we don't want to hear is that a government would try to move away from that kind of system and take Ontario taxpayers' money with them outside of a regulated field.

There's a good reason that governments historically have even moved into homes that are opened up as daycare centres, so that if you're caring for children over a certain number, you too are subject to the same kind of regulation that a daycare centre would be. That's because parents have to have some kind of a sense that regulation is what they're looking for. They know that it's against the law to have an infraction against the regulation. They can feel comfort in knowing their children are being cared for well.

That has been the history with this current government. You've not made moves to strengthen the act where it could be strengthened. In fact, you have advanced positions that would potentially weaken the act and that concerns us. Where you have had the opportunity, more so than the federal government - because we can all argue that the federal government is the furthest away from people and the Ontario government is closer and has traditionally looked at providing actual spaces, not just tax credits.

The advantage of actually having the space provided is that the children have somewhere to go, into a space, versus a tax credit. We would argue that a tax credit puts a family in a position to have to pay the money out in order to receive the benefit of a tax credit. Often it's these same poor working families that don't have the money up front to pay those kinds of fees in order to take benefit of the tax credit.

In the whole discussion of daycare, which can't be as simplified as coming today, this morning, to speak to this particular resolution, we have to look at it in a much broader scope than that. Yes, if parents had a choice, if financially they could stay home, that's their first preference. Second, if they're not looking after their own children, they want to see their children in centres that are highly regulated and of the highest quality. We believe that if we're going to spend Ontario taxpayers' money in the area of daycare, it must be within the guidelines of the daycare act that is going to make it a very highly regulated, safest place to keep our most precious cargo.

That is what we've said all along. Instead, we've had to go out there, around the road show, all across Ontario, talking with daycare workers who are worried about job loss. Go to schools that are facing eliminating the daycare centre that exists in their own school.

We cannot hear today and this morning in this House that in fact you've done more for children in the area of daycare than any other government. I wouldn't even suggest that the last term of government and certainly the term before that had a special focus on improving the opportunities. We know there are people who are currently on welfare who would be out in the job market if only they knew they had daycare space. In fact, if daycare were made available to them, you would have a significant decline in welfare rolls.

That's where we expect the direction of the government to go, to move people from the system because they know that it's the daycare opportunities that are lacking in order to have them get out there and into the workforce. That's the kind of thing we expect in terms of consistency if we're going to talk about daycare out of this government. We can't suddenly come in and advance the idea that you have to urge the feds to do something.

Every time the feds do something, you end up clawing it back. That's been your history. You've done that most recently again with a clawback. You've done that again in training programs, where every other province in Canada has managed to make a deal with the federal government except Ontario. The last thing we can see you doing, and it's been your history, is to try to work together to come to some good conclusion that would benefit families in Ontario. Every other province in Canada manages to come to that conclusion but Ontario.

We're seeing that again today in the discussion of daycare. If you were sincere about improving the lot of daycare opportunities for families, you wouldn't be throwing daycare centres out of schools across Ontario because of your new school funding formula.

I'd like to ask the members of this House who are here and who may speak to this bill what intervention they have made to their Minister of Education to say that the school funding formula should not be forcing school boards to go out there and charge non-profit daycare centres that operate in schools - because you know they can't afford it now, as is the case in the minister's own backyard. They're facing rental fees that they simply cannot afford, and if that should continue they'll simply close and go away. The 60 or 70 children who are there in the daycare centre will be out there.

Those are kids of working parents.

We can't on the one hand stand up for families who need daycare and who need every opportunity for child care, and on the other hand your own government, through various ministries, is taking those opportunities away from parents who are already out there. You have to be consistent. Individually, every one of us wants to see us do right by the children of Ontario.

I would ask very sincerely that if you're genuinely interested in making the lot of our children better, then you will be consistent in your government policy, that you won't play this as a political game and use it as another opportunity to blame some other level of government but look instead at your own ministries, your own history and track record in the area of child care.

Every child care advocate out there today will tell you that your record has not been wonderful and that you need to be improving this. You want to make improvements for the economy of Ontario, and the one surefire way to do that is to focus on daycare opportunities.

I'll stop there. I have other colleagues who will speak to this. I look forward to the resolution coming to a vote.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I appreciate the opportunity to address Mr Tilson's resolution. I appreciate the comments by Ms Pupatello and I'm largely in agreement with her.

I'm torn about the final part of the resolution. I have to say to the member that I understand the intent of what he is proposing. An opportunity to provide equitable access to the benefit of good-quality child rearing and child education, however that may be found by a family, is a sentiment with which I agree, but I have to say that I find the resolution, in the very narrow approach it takes, looking only at the federal tax treatment, to be a solution that doesn't match the complexity of the issue.

I understand that of course in a simple resolution that we debate in private members' time, it is difficult to cure all the ills of the world, including all the ills of the current child care dilemma faced by many families. I'm appreciative of that and appreciative of the attempt of the member, but I believe that setting out in this direction takes the debate in the wrong direction, and for that reason I am not in complete agreement with the resolution he has set out.

I believe there are solutions we can find that would make accessible to all families the choice of good-quality child care options and early childhood education options. I think one of those is a clarion call that for years I was part of demanding of government: the move towards a completely universal, accessible, quality child care system.

Over the years, I think the call for that has become more sophisticated in understanding the important role not simply of child care as an option for parents who must work and who require that support for good quality care for their children while they're at work, but in understanding the basic importance of early childhood education and looking at the body of research that has been developed that speaks to the incredible outcomes, particularly for children in vulnerable family situations, that come from the opportunity of early childhood education.

One of the things that I believe was an important step of the last government, which unfortunately has been abandoned as a direction, was the pilot projects on the early years project. The early years learning project, a recommendation that came out of the Royal Commission on Learning, was a model different than the current child care model that we have in the province. It was a model designed to provide opportunity, not compel attendance, for children younger than the junior kindergarten age for an experience of early childhood education. This is the three-year-old project that had been talked about.

While there was a concern among some when the concept was first brought forward that it might mean that we would compel all children to attend - well, we don't compel children to attend junior kindergarten; it's an option that would be open - I think moving in that universal way would be an important contribution.

At the other end, at the much younger end, is understanding the important role of parental leave for those who are in the workplace and looking at what is happening. One place where I might join in with the member in being critical of the current state of affairs at the federal level is with respect to what's happening under employment insurance and the kind of restrictions on eligibility that have been put in place, particularly as they apply to young or new mothers - mothers in the workforce with new children, no matter whether they are young or it's their first child or not.

If you look at the experience of the use of maternity leave benefits and UI supplements, their latest statistics show that there has been a dramatic decrease, something in the order of an over 7% decrease in the use of those benefits, and not because there has been a corresponding decrease in the birth rate - I think there's less than a 2% decrease in the birth rate over the last couple of years, the corresponding period - but because of two things: first, the change in employment patterns in very difficult times when more women are finding themselves in part-time work as opposed to full-time employment, even though full-time employment might be their first option; and second, because of the restrictions on eligibility for UI, they are simply not eligible.

That supplement program that had been put in place to support parenting and parental leaves in the very early days of a child has become less useful to the vast majority of Canadian parents, men and women, but primarily women on maternity leave who had used the majority of that benefit in the past.

The call for a more universal approach to understanding the need for child care must also, however, go hand in hand with a recognition of the importance of quality child care and regulated child care.

One of the concerns I have about the direction of the current government in Ontario, and I see it reinforced time and time again, whether it is in the Ecker report when the now minister was a parliamentary assistant and studied the child care system and produced a report with recommendations or whether it is in her current moves with respect to the funding of child care and the review of that funding that she is undertaking for those recipients of social welfare or those participants in Ontario Works. The direction seems to me to be clear, and it is a concern that I have with the proposal before us today.

I may be wrong about your own feelings on this, Mr Tilson, but the direction from the government that I see is one which, in using the language of supporting parental choice, seems to be looking for a much cheaper option and approach which provides a lump of money to parents to purchase that service out there, and a lump of money which is so inadequate that for many low-income working families or others, the option becomes one of unregulated care.

You can find some good caregivers in unregulated care - I don't paint the broad brush for them all - but I do have to tell you, in terms of the research that has been done and the anecdotal horror stories that we have amassed over the years, any parent who had the option of being able to afford good-quality, regulated child care, if they required that kind of support, would choose and in fact is choosing that option.

There are currently in Toronto alone 21,000 families who are affected by forced participation in Ontario Works, who are on a waiting list for quality, regulated child care spaces. That's in addition to the 15,000 who are already on the list. There is a crisis there, and I have to say to the member that the approach that she lauds so highly on behalf of the government, the approach of the income supplement, does nothing to address the issue of the shortage of quality, regulated child care spaces. In fact, it does very little for those working families which she, rightly, would like to assist.

It is in the amount of about $85 a month per child. That comes close to buying maybe a half a week of quality child care.

The options that you're providing for parents are not a true choice. While I will say that I prefer the income supplement approach to the previous approach of a year ago - which you were going to spend the same money on, by the way - which was the tax credit approach, neither of them measure up to an approach which would be a commitment to expanding the amount of quality, regulated child care spaces and subsidized spaces that are available in our province.

I do have to say that it's with some irony that I respond to the claims members of the government made about how much they have done for parents and for the child care system in this province, particularly the minister who spoke about this yesterday. I have to roll my eyes. Three years ago in 1996 in the budget the finance minister got up and made an announcement that, "Over the next five years we're going to be spending $40 million more a year cumulatively to the total of $200 million more a year, the most any government has ever spent in the history of the province on child care." Those words are right in the budget document.

Applause.

Ms Lankin: No, Mr Klees, you shouldn't clap. You have to wait for the rest of the story. Not a penny of it was spent that year.

The next year in 1997 he announced the $40 million again, but this time it was going to be a tax credit for child care. Then in 1998, and the member referred to this, he announced the same $40 million again, but not one penny has yet been spent. Three years later, the same money again and now it's an income supplement, and an income supplement that is not going to purchase good-quality child care and help those families meet those needs. Enough said on that. I'm sorry. What's that great movie with that great line? "Show me the money." Enough with the announcements; it would be nice to see some action.

But the crisis that we are seeing emerge in terms of waiting lists for good-quality child care should be instructive at least in one way to the government which does herald parental choice - and I understand that and I am supportive of the view of the importance of parental choice. They should, then, understand the vast majority of parents who are opting to choose good-quality child care and who can't afford it and who require subsidy help for that. That should be like the polls that you listen to with respect to other policies that you're developing in the direction of the government.

That's a real-life poll; that's not some hypothetical question over the phone. That's an action parents have taken to enlist and to hope and pray that someday that subsidy may become available to them.

Let me now tie back into your calls for a change in the federal government's approach. I would prefer an approach of government at all levels which sees a number of aspects to it, which sees support for an increased number of quality, regulated child care spaces in our country, support which sees a greater number of those spaces being cost-shared for subsidy. I will admit that the federal government under, first of all, Prime Minister Mulroney and then Chrétien has essentially decimated the cost-sharing from the federal level of government for subsidized child care. There is no doubt about that, and there should be round criticism of that.

The last comment I want to touch is in response to the member's plea for the federal government to understand the important role of parenting and parental choice, stay-at-home parenting, in some way in the tax system and the pension system. I thought that was very interesting. I remember for a number of years the call for pensions for homemakers. It was something generally that members of the Conservative Party were not in favour of, so I'm interested to hear you moving into that direction and talking about pensions and how pensions treat difference in terms of working individuals and stay-at-home individuals.

It's not just parenting. It's in terms of recognizing what happens within the home and its importance to the economy and the sustaining of our economy and understanding that stay-at-home parenting and stay-at-home homemaking is a vital role in allowing families and individuals to participate in the economic workforce.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about whether it is only parenting that you see as having a value for this kind of tax credit and/or pension treatment or whether the issue of homemaking comes into that. There have been many debates over the years as to whether or not that is a worthy cause, those debates similar to what you said where people simply say you then would be subsidizing the wealthiest who can afford to stay home. As you point out, that is not always the case; sometimes it is and maybe there's a way of addressing that. We're very good at making tax systems complex, so maybe there is a way of addressing that.

I find myself conflicted. I think that the direction and the specific issue you bring forward, while I understand the intent and I'm actually very sympathetic to the intent of what you bring forward, doesn't match the complexity of the issue. To move on that one piece takes us down a road that I think is counterproductive to the overall goal of where we need to be.

I find myself in opposition to the specific recommendation in your resolution but torn and quite sympathetic to the sentiment which gave rise to it.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to rise in support of Mr Tilson's ballot item number 24.

Just as a small

preamble, I should always remind people that as a parent with five children, and my wife is a teacher, a professional, we've had to make many choices with child-rearing responsibilities. That's why I chose to speak on this. It is a shared responsibility, it is not a gender issue and the world of work itself is changing. There is a whole argument aside from that.

Many constituents in my riding of Durham East are homeworkers - consultants, professional people in business and financial areas - who are contending with home care issues. I think that as you look to the next century, you have to look for choice. Clearly, my support here is that the governments, both provincially and federally, have to look at a series of options, of which one of course would include the motion by Mr Tilson today.

Our government clearly recognizes the important role of children and the important aspect of paying some additional attention to that. In that respect, the Honourable Margaret Marland, the first minister for children in this province, has outlined a number of initiatives on the part of this government: For the sake of those listening today, the child care supplement, $40 million, is an important addition, $100 million for the national child care benefit; next year this will grow to $200 million. This year the program will be delivered to 210,000 families and support some 350,000 young people in Ontario.

We're also working with business and providing for the workplace that is changing. As we know, many agreements with the union representation - in fact, there are areas here at Queen's Park where there are child care places right in the place of work. We're providing a 30% child care tax credit in capital costs for those businesses, making those investments for their employees. I would encourage that. Also, for people with young children who are trying to reskill themselves and return to work, because the two-income family situation is the reality today, we're providing a supplement of over $1,000 per year when the parents have children under the age of seven.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine suggested that perhaps there was some decline in the provision of regulated child spaces. The reality, in my research: In 1984-85 the then Liberal government spent some $87.3 million in this area. Today we're spending some $600 million, so clearly the money is there, more than in any other province on a per capita basis. The licensed child care system has also grown. Currently, there are 143,000 regulated child care spaces. That's an increase of some 14,000 spaces since March 1995. I think it's entirely good news.

On a more personal note, why did I take the time to come this morning? Not because I'm a parent of five children but because from way back this issue has been of some value to me. I was struck this morning by the member for Windsor-Sandwich's comments. The member for Beaches-Woodbine probably covered that better than I did. The member for Windsor-Sandwich accused the provincial government of clawbacks. We were all part of the debate earlier this week with respect to the EI fund and their clawback in that area. I would remind members of the federal Liberal government's clawback of some $6 billion out of the health care system for Canadians.

I also remind them to look at their income tax statement, the weekly or monthly stub on their cheque, and see the increases over time in the CPP - that pension contribution is increasing double for the employers as well - and more specifically the income tax itself. I have a statement here that the income tax system is clearly stacked against the single-income family. In fact, I'd like to read for the record a paper in my research. This is from Mr Louis Lévesque, director of the personal income tax division in the federal government, the Department of Finance. This was issued in February 1997. I'll read a couple of things.

I'm just going to deviate here for a moment. I supported a federal Liberal private member's bill in Ottawa to address this very issue of Mr Tilson's. My first correspondence was very early in 1996, when I wrote to then-member Paul Szabo. I believe he was the MP for Mississauga South. Mr Szabo was dealing with the same issue, a child tax credit. I supported him and wrote to a number of people in my riding to make them aware that there are Liberals who really do care about making the playing field level.

Going back to the comments made by Mr Lévesque in the report he submitted to the ministry, he says:

"Nevertheless, under the current income tax system, the combined tax liability of one-earner couples (defined in this paper as those in which one spouse has income not exceeding $6,456) is generally higher than that of two-earner couples with the same income and family structure.

"A one-earner couple with two children and $60,000 income can pay as much as $7,000 more in total federal and provincial income taxes" - about $15,000 more per family that's disadvantaged. That would go a long way. I'm going to quote this for the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who's looking at that. I'm going to refer to this chart from the federal government and make one more reference. A one-earner family with an income of $60,000 would pay $15,600 in tax and a two-earner family would only pay $8,600.

Clearly, the initiative by Mr Tilson would indeed help those single-income families to have a level playing field.

I'm sharing my time with other members.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the resolution. I expect that all of us are supportive of measures that will bring our society up to date. In the workplace most are now two-income families. My wife and I have four grown children who are facing the challenges of combining work and being parents as well. It is not an easy job. My children happen to live in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and with distances and time travelled it is extremely challenging.

I'm very supportive of things that will help to bring up to date measures that make it easier to combine work and family. I'm supportive of the thrust of the resolution, which I guess is designed to be one step forward.

My only challenge is that I normally like to know what the cost of something is, and I have no idea whether we're talking here about $100 million or $1 billion or $5 billion. I simply don't know. One of the luxuries of private members' time is that you can support in principle a thrust, always with the proviso that when it's finally costed out it may be an idea that is directionally sound but unaffordable. I think everybody in Ontario understands the need to be fiscally responsible.

I'm pleased to be supportive of things that bring our workplaces up to date. I think there's much more we have to do to change our laws and regulations around making it easier for families to combine work and parenthood. As I say, I'm supportive of the thrust of it. Normally I'd like to see a lot more about the cost of it. Frankly, the resolution is quite open-ended on that, and it talks about "regardless of the method of child care chosen, including direct parental care," so I suspect the intent is some tax break for parents who stay home. As I say, I'm supportive of the thrust and concerned about the details.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to participate in this debate on this important resolution brought forward by our colleague. I'll try to focus my remarks specifically to this resolution. Much has been said about what is being done already in this province. It's particularly important to note that we are discussing this issue on this day, which falls into Family Week, and I think the underlying focus here is on the importance of the family and the role governments play, either directly or indirectly, in supporting that most important institution in our society.

Back in September 1997, I presented a petition to this Legislature that was brought to me by one of my constituents, a Ms Cheryl Stewart of Bolton. On that occasion I read into the record this petition:

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

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

The petition went on to say that we would encourage discussion with the federal government to encourage the federal government to make some adjustments to its tax policies to recognize the importance of families who make the choice to have one parent stay at home and look after the child.

I will be the first one to say that I wish we could do more as a provincial government in that direction as well, and I will join with other colleagues in this House to advocate that much more be done in this area on the part of our government. But I will say this - and I won't repeat what has been said by other members in this House - that this government already has done much more than many other governments that have gone before.

I would like to speak very briefly to the fact that I believe we do need to appeal to the federal government, which is the thrust of this resolution, to make some changes not only to how they deal with child support but also to the underlying tax system that's in place. We know that somehow the taxation system in this country really is undermining much of what parents would like to do in support of their children. For example, if you have a single earner in a family earning $60,000 and you compare the taxes that are paid by that single earner to a family that earns $60,000 between two parents, there's a difference of about $5,600 that's paid in income taxes.

I think what we need to do as a society is really focus on how we can have our taxation system not undermine the family but in fact support the family and make it possible for those choices to be made by parents to elect that one of those parents stay home.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine made reference to the affordability of this. I question in the long term whether we can afford to continue not to support this kind of program, because encouraging a system where we perhaps reward parents for placing their children into organized, structured daycare out of the home and encourage them effectively to go to work rather than making it possible for them financially to stay home I think has its true cost in the long term.

I commend my colleague for bringing this matter forward. I trust the message will be loud and clear to our colleagues at the federal level of government, as they consider this important issue, to make the appropriate changes, and that together, provincially as well as federally, we set this matter right.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The first comment I would make is a general comment on the use of this period. The government members seem to use it to point at other levels of government, particularly the federal government. I've always believed, even when I was in opposition and when the Mulroney government was in power in Ottawa, that the best thing to do is to deal with provincial issues within this purview.

I happen to get along very well with the member who has proposed this. I like some of his thoughts. For instance, I hoped he would have brought forward a resolution on something he and I agree on, that is, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the need to preserve the Niagara Escarpment lands, because he's been very consistent on that issue and we happen to share our view on that. I would have been here enthusiastically endorsing that and the work that Norm Sterling, when he was Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, did in the early days of establishing the Niagara Escarpment Commission. But we're not talking about that today, so I'll deal with the issue.

I find it interesting - this member isn't a Reform-a-Tory, but many of his colleagues who are quite right-wing are - that he would offer a resolution where the cost is somewhat uncertain. It's just unusual for this particular government to do that and it's something no doubt he would want to look at along the way anyway.

This can be a bit difficult to administer, I think he would agree, in that, how do you determine who should get that tax break or not? There have to be rules. I think it's administration more than anything else that we'd have to look at there.

I think what we need is the best possible daycare out there for people as well. Where the provincial government can play a role is to fund, for those who choose the option of daycare, where you have people who are qualified in the field to deal with children in many ways - that that's available. Dr Fraser Mustard has emphasized in many of his speeches the importance of early childhood education and early contact with children to ensure that later on they don't encounter some of the difficulties that they can.

I appreciate the fact that the member is dealing with an issue that I think is of considerable importance to everyone, the care of children, particularly at that very young age. I think we'll have to look at the details of it. I just wish it would have been in a provincial initiative.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to stand in support of the resolution of the member for Dufferin-Peel, who as chair of our caucus I've come to respect a great deal. You can see some of his work through his resolution today, an important and long-standing issue, not one that's spurred by some recent headlines that gets some quick press but one of those issues that families and parents and their children talk about across the dinner table, something that has been there for a long time.

I think he's right to press it, to bring about the necessary change, a change to the bias in tax policy against those families where one parent chooses to stay at home, and through this resolution calling on the authors of Canada's tax policy, the federal government, to enact those changes to limit or, if possible, to eliminate that bias. I support him in that.

It's not always politically correct to push for parents to stay at home to raise their children, as the member to my right from York-Mackenzie rightly said. He made a good point that it's very tempting to support the idea that the professional child care lobby, armed with the latest manuals, the latest ideas out of the universities, are the only ones who are capable of adequately raising a child in today's society.

I think on this side of the House we would argue quite the opposite, that there's something more meaningful than the latest manual and that is several millennia of wisdom passed down from one family to the next on how best to raise a child. I think it's a dangerous principle to assume or to purport that children are better off in professional daycare as opposed to being raised by the mother or the father in the home.

In my own family, my mother took time off to help raise me, and that's a considerable sacrifice, the opportunity cost in the family, giving up the salary and the impact on her pension in retirement - but something I will be eternally grateful for - to help me prepare for school down the road through her assistance and reading to me and all of these things. Her own mother, not a professional child care worker, helped her raise her own first child.

I think it's right to try to change the tax incentives to eliminate that bias, to give families a free choice of their child care options. When you tax something, Economics 101 will tell you that you will get less of it. If you tax income at higher and higher levels progressively, then there's a disincentive to work harder and to get into those higher tax brackets. If you tax payroll, it's a tax on jobs and as a result you have fewer jobs created. So when you have a tax penalty for stay-at-home parents, inevitably on the margin you're going to have less of it.

I think the resolution is an important one, a long-standing issue, and from Niagara South I give full support to the member for Dufferin-Peel, who wants to see a level playing field to give people the choice of how best to choose child care options for their own children.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Tilson, you have two minutes.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to thank all members of the House for participating in this debate, particularly the members of the opposition who have commented on some of the aspects of this issue, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for St Catharines and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, in particular. I get the impression that they support the intent but they're opposed generally to the resolution. We'll see.

I understand their saying we've got to broaden the issue, we've got to look at all issues of daycare. Quite frankly, the intent of the resolution is to zero in on that type of tax benefit that's part of our overall daycare, whether it's federal or provincial. If you're going to provide tax benefits to some, for those people who work, the intent of the resolution is that you provide the tax benefits to all.

To my friend who has just spoken, obviously the issue is to put all of these people on a level playing field. That's their job, to criticize. I respect both the two critics who spoke. They do a good job in trying to keep us on our toes. But I don't agree that we should broaden this issue. We should look at this one issue and ask the Ontario government officials to speak to their federal counterparts with respect to changing this law. The federal Liberals are looking at this. It's currently in one of their caucus committees, and we're simply trying to light a fire to keep them going. I don't know where they're going to go on it, but I hope they do something about it.

I'd like to thank a couple of people from my riding who are here today: Cheryl Stewart, Ashley Stewart and Anne Oldham. Cheryl Stewart has been trying to get me to speak on this for four years. Maybe it's because I just had a child three months ago. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 23, standing in the name of Mr Chudleigh.

Mr Chudleigh has moved second reading of Bill 66. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to committee of the whole.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I ask that it be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Acting Speaker: Everybody agrees? Agreed.

Therefore, a majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on social development.

CHILD CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 24, standing in the name of Mr Tilson.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1156 to 1201.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Curling, Alvin

Danford, Harry

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pupatello, Sandra

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Tilson, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Lankin, Frances

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 3.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): The government killed my school bus safety bill last year. Though it had the unanimous consent of the Legislature, they would not allow it to be carried over to the current legislative session, but I have reintroduced it.

I have in my hand several recent articles urging drivers to stop for school buses with their red lights flashing. The Chatham Daily News states, "The reminder comes after police received numerous complaints that motorists weren't stopping for school buses." This, in the midst of the back-to-school blitzes conducted by most police departments.

The same thing happened last year. Elgin county OPP had to issue a warning to say: "The consequences for failing to stop for the bus when it has its lights activated can be disastrous. A child could be severely injured or killed because you were either not paying attention or in such a hurry that you thought you could beat the bus lights."

The Harris government refuses to give the law teeth. It refuses to give the law a mechanism to convict drivers who pass school buses illegally. Raising fines isn't enough to protect children. The government law is a failure. There is no deterrent. Police shouldn't have to beg drivers to heed the law.

Premier, your job is to protect innocent children, not guilty drivers. Lives are at stake. Pass vehicle liability to protect our children.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The ministry inspection of the Niagara Regional Police Force released yesterday reveals some very startling findings. In fact, it confirms what the Niagara Regional Police and their association have been trying to tell the province, this government, and the people of Niagara for some time now. The Niagara Regional Police are shy 77 officers. That's 13% of their staff complement as it was in 1991.

The ministry inspection report indicates a number of complaints, the most common being the shortage of available deployable officers, resulting in reduced response times and compromising the health and safety of members. In fact, among the conclusions by this inspection team was that there was a shortage of personnel in various operational areas as a result of redirection of staff to front-line patrol to address staff shortages there. It indeed finds that there has been a delay in at least one major criminal investigation.

The head of the Niagara Regional Police association, its administrator, Mike Pratt, on behalf of police officers in Niagara has called upon the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to conduct their own inquiry, as they're empowered to do under the Police Services Act. The administrator speaks of the concern about the safety of the community, about indeed the safety of police officers and their effectiveness if they continue to be under-resourced as they have been as a result of this government's downloading on to the province.

I call upon the Solicitor General to support that request for an inquiry.

BREAST CANCER

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): On Friday, October 2, 1998, the community of Chatham-Kent was the scene of the first candlelight run-walk to beat breast cancer. Five volunteers - Peggy Seaman, Penny McGregor, Caroline Evans, Karen De Koning and Janette Carroll - worked with Mary Anne McCrae and other staff of the local branch of the Canadian Cancer Society to initiate, design and plan this fund-raiser to raise money to assist in research into the causes of breast cancer, and hopefully someday a cure.

What was most inspiring about the event were the several cancer survivors who led the 150 participants around the first lap of the candlelit course on the grounds of St Clair College. It was indeed an emotional start to a very special evening.

Over $20,000 was raised at this very unique event, one that could be held in so many more communities next year. My congratulations to the organizers, the volunteers and all the participants who made this walk of hope and remembrance a huge success.

TUITION FEES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Ontario has now moved to the head of the pack. We are number one in the country when it comes to the cost of getting a university education.

According to a survey by USC Education Savings Plans, when all things are considered - tuition, board and books - it costs $10,348 a year to go to university in Ontario. Nova Scotia, the only other province to have deregulated tuition fees, is still slightly ahead of us in tuition costs, but we are catching up fast.

Ontario university students face the biggest tuition fee increase in the country this year. Fees have gone up 71% in Ontario in the last five years, thanks to hikes by both the NDP and the Tories. But under Mike Harris and his deregulation, we'll see even higher fees in the future. Fees in some deregulated programs have risen 50% to 100% this year. By next September, medical students at the University of Toronto will be paying $11,000 a year for tuition alone.

What does this mean to students? It means soaring debts that cripple them on graduation. The loan default costs went up again last year - in fact they doubled - from $63 million to $126 million. They had doubled the year before that and they are expected to increase again next year. That means graduates are in more debt than they can pay off.

Instead of helping to keep the debt down, the Harris government keeps driving it higher and higher. Ontario graduates aren't facing a world of opportunities in Mike Harris's Ontario; they're facing a lifetime of loan repayments and bad credit ratings.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Ontario's health system has failed Kevin Bushey.

On September 16 he arrived at Blind River's health centre with a lacerated cornea and the iris coming out the laceration. A piece of metal was still in his eye.

He was given a tetanus shot but no pain medication. He was driven 165 kilometres to the St Joseph's Health Centre in Sudbury in the company vehicle. He had immediate surgery to fix the cornea and iris. Because Sudbury didn't have the expertise to remove the metal, he was sent to Toronto the next day.

He was told the following: He would be taken by air ambulance to Toronto Hospital, Western Division, register at emergency, be taken immediately to the eye clinic and surgery would be done. He could not have an escort on the air ambulance. He was not given any pain medication to take with him. His wife had to drive him to the Sudbury airport to catch the air ambulance as no land ambulance was available. At the airport she was then told she could go with him.

The air ambulance landed instead at Toronto Island Airport. There was no land ambulance to meet him. Kevin had to walk on to the ferry and take it across to catch a cab to the hospital.

At emergency, Kevin was told that patients who came in ambulances would be seen first. His wife explained what arrangements had already been made. The receptionist said he'd have to wait. An emergency nurse was told the same story. She said she needed someone from ophthalmology to give her instructions before he could go to the eye clinic. She finally found a doctor to give him pain medication six hours after the last dose.

After three and a half hours in emergency, he was finally sent to the eye clinic. The receptionist asked him where he had been as they had been waiting for him all day. He had three hours of surgery to remove the metal from his eye.

The Minister of Health must investigate this -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

BRAMPTON BATTALION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): This Friday night, October 9, marks an important date in Brampton sports history. Our new addition to the Ontario Hockey League, the Brampton Battalion, will play their home opener against the Kitchener Rangers.

On December 3, 1996, Scott Abbot, co-inventor of Trivial Pursuit, was awarded the OHL franchise for Brampton. Over 40,000 ballots of support were gathered from our residents to select a team and the Battalion name was chosen in January of this year.

Battalion will play their home games in our new 5,000-seat bunker called the Brampton Sports and Entertainment Centre, which includes three other ice pads and a 360-seat restaurant. It was entirely built without taxpayers' dollars.

The centre held its gala opening last night for the public, hosted by CFRB morning man Ted Woloshyn and included special guests like Canadian medallists Josée Chouinard and Elvis Stojko.

Battalion's strong staff are led by president Greg McNamara, director of hockey operations and coach Stan Butler, and assistant coaches Rob O'Brien and Luigi Villa.

The Brampton Battalion will be a great team. They'll be complemented by a number of off-ice activities over the winter including a tailgate party, tacky tourist night and jeep race. The Battalion mascot, Sarge, will be on hand to lead our team forward to beat those corny ice dogs.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to Ontario's farmers today as we continue to celebrate Agri-food Week.

Too often the work done by our farming community is underestimated and undervalued in today's society.

As you know, recently the international plowing match and farm machinery show was held in Sunbury, just outside of Kingston. The event was superbly organized by Ken Keyes, a former member from Kingston and The Islands in this House, and his hundreds of volunteers. Close to 100,000 people visited the IPM and farm machinery show, whose theme this year was "Quality Living/A Partnership" between the agricultural and urban communities. Congratulations to Ken and all for a tremendously successful event.

Once again a VIP plowing match was held. I thought you would be interested in seeing what the winner of the VIP plowing contest received. Here it is, something I will proudly display on my desk as the winner of this year's match.

I want to assure all the members of this Legislature that for once we were a united team. I want to tell you that I won this trophy and accept it as a win by the Ontario Legislature against the federal House.

But to the members across the floor and the third party, let this trophy be a reminder. Here in the Liberal caucus we have a winning team, and we are set to grasp another trophy, which will not be shared with you, whenever the Premier decides to issue the challenge and call the next provincial election.

UNITED WAY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In Sault Ste Marie again this year we've kicked off the United Way campaign, led by the able persons of Mike McEwan and Donna Irving, who will do an extraordinary job, just as the leaders of last year's campaign did. The theme chosen for this year's Sault Ste Marie United Way campaign is the same as last year, "Building an Extraordinary Community," because we who live in Sault Ste Marie and call it home truly believe we have an extraordinary community. We're going to do everything in our power, in spite of the attack of this government, to make sure it continues to be just that.

In Sault Ste Marie, the United Way not only collects and spends money but goes through an exercise of prioritizing what the challenges are. This year we're going to focus on poverty, on access to health care, on jobs, because we have an extraordinarily high unemployment rate in our city, and we're going to be focusing on crime.

In Sault Ste Marie, we politicians have also joined in the quest to build an extraordinary community. We have what is called the round table there, where the mayor and the federal MP and the provincial MPP sit and work with groups like the United Way to decide together what it is we need to be doing in our city to respond in a proactive way to the challenges that face us, and to look ahead to see what it is we might be facing a year or five or 10 years down the road.

I encourage everybody to support the United Way.

HOSPICES

Mr Bob Wood (London South): Hospice Awareness Week is Sunday, October 11, to Saturday, October 16, 1998. It is entirely appropriate that Thanksgiving falls within Hospice Awareness Week.

The highly motivated and trained hospice volunteers of Ontario now number well over 10,000. Every month, new volunteers are trained by existing hospices, new hospices are created to meet specialized needs, or hospice organizations are formed in new areas, all important steps in meeting as much of the great unsatisfied need as is possible.

These volunteers, backed by dedicated medical professionals who often provide many volunteer services themselves, provide critical emotional and spiritual support and pain and symptom relief for those suffering. Volunteers also supply respite, information and other support for family caregivers.

Most importantly, they facilitate opportunities for moments of joy and reconciliation, particularly for those who face life-shortening illness, and for their families and friends as well.

Hospices and the volunteers often enable people to continue living at home or close to it. If necessary, they bring as much of family and home as possible to those who must have care in a nursing home or a hospital bed.

This year, the Ontario Hospice Association and the Canadian and Ontario palliative care associations, along with many of the other related 650 Canadian programs and services, are sponsoring "living lessons" as a step towards increasing the awareness of hospice care.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing and thanking these volunteers for the important contribution they make to the quality of life in our province.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that unanimous consent be given for a debate today on the need for urgent government action to combat homelessness and a declaration that a state of emergency exists in regard to homelessness across Ontario and especially in Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is just a request for unanimous consent for emergency debate. Agreed? I heard a no.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome a visitor in the Speaker's gallery: Señor Remigio Alvarez Andres, Minister of Tourism for the State of Morelos, Mexico. Please join me in welcoming him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet. Yesterday we came into possession of a 122-page secret document that gives explicit instructions to your managers in the event of a public servants' strike later this year. The document reads in part:

"You may use a contractor to do struck work. You could move struck work from a struck location to a non-struck location to be performed by a contractor but only with the minister's approval."

Sounds like scab work to us, Minister.

My question is very simple: Will you tell the people of Ontario today that in the event of a legal strike by Ontario's public servants you will not use scabs, contractors, temporary agencies or fee-for-service agencies to perform the work normally done by Ontario's public servants?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The report the member of the opposition talks about is a lengthy document that is in preparation for disruption of service due to a strike. As everyone in this House knows, the collective agreement with OPSEU expires on December 31 of this year. We are starting the negotiation process and OPSEU has publicly stated that if there isn't a contract signed on December 31, they will withdraw their services.

Similar to what's happened in the past, we issue guidelines to managers on how to manage in the event of a strike. We intend to share that with the bargaining units. We would have shared it with them a week ago but they withdrew from the table. They will receive it. They will, consequently and subsequently, at the same time give to us their plan on how they will conduct their strike.

The first step in negotiations is negotiating the essential service agreement. That is going on. They temporarily withdrew from the table. I hope we will have a settlement that's in the interests of the taxpayers and also respects the hard work that our public service has done and this will be unnecessary.

Mr Duncan: Minister, there's nothing wrong with planning. We'd be surprised if you didn't have a plan. I certainly hope that you don't want a repeat of what happened two years ago, if this is in fact your plan. That was a disgrace not only to your government but to this province that was reported worldwide.

Our problem is that this plan very clearly indicates that you have no intention of bargaining in good faith, that in fact you're attempting to bully, you're attempting to threaten Ontario's public servants. You are talking, Minister, I will remind you, very clearly from this document about hiring scabs. Let's forget the plan. I just want to know from you: In the event of legal strike, are you prepared to use scabs to perform the work of Ontario's public servants?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Let me be clear. The member is correct when he states that this is prudent planning. It's done by organizations throughout the world that of this nature are large in size.

Like the federal government, we have the right to use replacement workers. We also think it's prudent that we get a plan out to instruct managers in all the uncertainties around the situation that might be created if there is a strike.

Like I stated before, we have an obligation and a responsibility to make sure that services are delivered to the public. We also want to, in good faith, bargain a collective agreement with our government employees, represented by OPSEU, before December 31. As the member knows, it takes two sides to reach an amicable agreement that all can live with.

Mr Duncan: The minister has just said that they're going to use scabs, that the government clearly intends to do this. Let me ask the minister this, then: What do you think that does to negotiations? How do you think that affects the morale of public servants in this province? What does it say to public servants who in the last five years have seen their contracts stripped, have gone through the agony of a strike that they went through two years ago? What does it say to those public servants?

Will you admit now that you have no intention of negotiating in good faith? In fact, Minister, will you not admit that you'd like to provoke a strike and that you intend to use scabs? What are you going to do about it? Why won't you make sure that you negotiate in good faith instead of using threatening and bullying tactics against Ontario's hard-working public servants?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If the member of the Liberal Party is suggesting that we shouldn't take the time and outline in a comprehensive manner instructions to our managers, that's prudent planning. He agreed a question ago that that should take place. Like the federal government, we think it's prudent to share those plans with the bargaining agents and we're going to do that.

The bottom line is that we think it's possible to reach an agreement with OPSEU before December 31, but like I said, it takes two sides to negotiate in good faith. We're there and we're hopeful that will work out in the fullness of time.

I'm not sure of his point on the event that he talks about. If he's saying that releasing the plan and telling managers what to do in the event of labour disruption is wrong and somehow incites the situation, I disagree with him. If this is just a move to try to get the union dollars for the Liberal Party, I find that reprehensible. Leah Casselman, who represents OPSEU, and our negotiating team will be working from now -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Health. For the first two years of your government you cut $800 million from hospitals in Ontario, you ordered the closure of 35 hospitals and you failed to provide funds on a timely basis.

This past Thursday, you specifically instructed your caucus to vote against a private member's resolution that would have helped all of those hospitals that are facing deficits and accumulated debt, even though we presented facts from many hospitals in many regions in Ontario that are now in the worst financial crisis they've seen. I'd like to know, if the situation wasn't so dire, why you would take the time to strong-arm the members of your own caucus to vote against the resolution?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I don't know how well you know the members of our caucus, but I can tell you they are very independent-minded individuals. I think it's quite an insult for you to suggest that anyone could persuade them to do something they were not inclined to do.

Mrs Pupatello: Here is the letter that you as the Minister of Health sent to all your caucus colleagues. This is the letter you sent telling them to vote against the resolution. Clearly there are problems even in the caucus areas that they represent in their ridings. We know that the London Health Sciences Centre is facing $6 million in deficits; the Cambridge hospital, $2.2 million in deficits; the Ottawa Hospital, $25 million in deficits by year's end; the Grand River Hospital, $4 million, and the list goes on. We presented all of those succinctly last Thursday.

How can you continue to deny that Ontario hospitals are facing the worst crisis they've ever seen? The Ontario Hospital Association likewise clearly indicated unequivocally that hospitals in Ontario are facing extremely serious funding problems: "Over half of Ontario's hospitals are running deficits and these deficits are likely to be in excess of $200 million in this fiscal year."

Minister, can you continue to deny that this problem -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The reality is, our government is taking an initiative which I can assure you yours has never done. We have set up a joint Ministry of Health task force with the OHA to discuss the funding issues that are related to the hospitals.

I have a quote here from the Toronto Star, September 21, 1988, "Health Minister Elinor Caplan has ordered the province's 222 hospitals to balance their $5.5 billion budget, saying, `The government will not bail out debt-ridden hospitals.'" It appears she didn't even talk and try to solve the problem.

Mrs Pupatello: What I didn't say to you was that in your first two years of government you removed $800 million from their budgets. We know in this House the response to that in communities. Yesterday we heard from Sudbury about a woman who was in an ER 14 hours until she fell on the floor and required stitches. We know the parents in Ottawa who had to take shifts to take care of their child or pay $8,000 a month for nursing care. We know that in Windsor this summer alone there were 230 times when an ambulance could not discharge patients because the emergency rooms were clogged.

Your own report from your ministry documents the reports of all the hospital woes that are documenting the reports of this deficit that is causing only more reports to be written.

Why, Minister? Belleville, Hotel Dieu in Windsor, North York in Toronto, Woodstock, St Thomas Elgin, St John's in Toronto, and the list goes on, itemize financial crises in their hospitals. Will you continue to deny that this problem exists?

Hon Mrs Witmer: What I will say is what I said in my response the second time, that we are working with the Ontario Hospital Association because what we want to ensure is high-quality patient care. let me again quote, this time from the Windsor Star, September 28, 1989: "Mr Bierman was one of about 120 Windsor area patients" -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: "Mr Bierman was one of about 120 Windsor area patients who have been waiting as long as a year for open heart surgery at hospitals in London and Toronto. Several Windsor patients died of heart attacks while on the list. Last month, local cardiologists began advising high-risk patients to have the surgery done in Detroit area hospitals even if it costs them $10,000-$15,000."

That is your health record. We are going to ensure that we can provide this type of cardiac surgery. We're very proud of the fact that because of the additional reimbursements, we have been able to reduce our cardiac waiting lists.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to bring to the attention of the members, in the opposition members' gallery, from the last Legislature, the member for Scarborough East, Mr Bob Frankford. Welcome.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This morning my colleague Rosario Marchese, the member for Fort York, attended an incredible news conference. More than 400 homeless people and their supporters packed Trinity church, a few blocks from here, to call for emergency action for the homeless.

Renowned scientist Ursula Franklin, public health nurse Cathy Crow and a number of advocates spoke movingly about the devastation your government has created in the area of housing and the number of people who are now homeless and living in the streets. This is a movement that's growing. Churches are becoming part of this movement, community organizations; even some developers are joining this movement.

Earlier this week the member for Fort York asked you to take urgent action on this. I'm asking you again today: Will you build the 5,000 urgently needed units for people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): This is indeed a very important issue. I know it is a very complex issue and it is also very tragic when individuals find themselves in a situation where they are homeless. Our municipalities across this province have done a very good job. Here in Toronto we can see the many creative solutions that have come forward that are actually helping individuals to get linked up with housing or to get the other supports they need, whether it's mental health, substance abuse or whatever.

We support the call for a national strategy. I think that will be very helpful. We are working closely with Toronto and the other municipalities to continue to put forward more solutions that will help this. We continue to be a major funder of emergency shelters for people who find themselves homeless. That is something that has not been reduced, nor should it be reduced, because we believe it's a very important support for those municipalities. We will continue to support them in doing that.

Mr Hampton: Minister, not only are you not doing anything about the homeless and this problem, what you are trying to do will make matters worse. By off-loading responsibility on to municipalities that don't have the budget, you'll make matters worse. You're trying to get the federal government to join your plan to download the rest of social housing on to municipalities.

I've got a leaked communications plan from the Ministry of Housing. It says on page 7, "In writing to the federal gover