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

October 2, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L102 - Wed 2 Oct 1996 / Mer 2 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

DUFFERIN-CALEDON HEALTH CARE CORP

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

ST JULIAN PARK

STRATFORD BEACON HERALD

BOOKER PRIZE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

EDUCATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

EDUCATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

EDUCATION

VISITORS

ROBERT BOURASSA

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SPORTS FUNDING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

AIR QUALITY

SERVICE OF THE SPEAKER

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

GARDE D'ENFANTS

MANDATORY INQUESTS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Northern Ontario faces unique challenges in providing social, educational and health initiatives to the people living within this region.

On page 3 of the famous Tory election document entitled A Voice for the North, Mike Harris stated: "The people of northern Ontario have given us a clear message: Their needs and concerns are not being met by the provincial government...that northerners feel left out of the decision-making process." Then we found out yesterday that the Premier's answer to fixing this problem is to cut even further the north's voice at Queen's Park.

I have here a resolution from the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce calling upon the Premier to appoint an assistant deputy minister who will work with and reside in northwestern Ontario.

Northwestern Ontario business community and municipal leaders, after 16 months of Tory government, continue to feel left out of the decision-making process. I call upon the government to commit to residents of northwestern Ontario that the recommendation by the chambers of commerce will be given every consideration.

Mr Premier, over the summer I travelled throughout my riding and met with business people, education, health care and municipal leaders. The reaction I received was that northerners are feeling isolated from your government's policy to centralize decision-making for the north in your office here in Toronto. Your decision yesterday to reduce northern representation in the Legislature is just the latest insult to an already frustrated northern Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to say to the people of Hamilton and other communities that what is happening in Thunder Bay and Sudbury with regard to their hospital closures needs to be a wake-up call for all. In our own community of Hamilton we had a near crisis as a result of this government's forcing the task force to cut their time in half, from two years to one year, and they came up with a plan that included the closure of St Joseph's Hospital in the heart of downtown Hamilton.

There was such an outcry that a new group had to form, the Academic-Health Care Network, and they, working together and cooperatively, came up with a plan that allowed us to save St Joseph's Hospital and keep all the other hospitals that we have in Hamilton. But that plan was predicated on our community of Hamilton being able to keep all the money saved on the institutional side in our community invested in community services.

I call on the four Tory MPPs from my area to make sure that when your Minister of Health's hatchet commission comes to Hamilton, you stand up and fight for Hamilton and not just stand up and toe the party line. We need to and we can save all the hospitals in Hamilton. We have a plan that will work, but you have to convince your minister that we keep that money and reinvest it. And maybe you ought to be doing the same thing for the people in Sudbury, because they need some help too.

DUFFERIN-CALEDON HEALTH CARE CORP

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to highlight the success story of the fund-raising efforts of the Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp in my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

The Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp is building a new facility to serve the residents of Dufferin county and the town of Caledon. The amount of $5.2 million must be raised by the community to prepare the health care centre for its new home at the corner of Highways 9 and 10. This capital campaign is being led by honorary chair George Eaton and a group of very talented and committed individuals from within Dufferin and Caledon.

As well as traditional fund-raising events, this committee has tapped into an expanding market of funds through private sector partnerships. In recent weeks Husky Injection Mouldings of Bolton donated $1 million to the health care centre. This donation will allow our new health care facility to be the first in the world to have digitized diagnostic imaging, or filmless X-rays. The addition of digitized diagnostic imaging means that Headwaters will have leading-edge technology that will save space on storage, reduce radiation to the patients by at least 30%, lessen chemical disposal costs and, finally, decrease operating costs.

Husky Injection Mouldings chose this donation because it ties in with their commitment to the environment. Husky's head office and the Headwaters Health Care Centre both have tried to design their facilities to work with the environment. For example, landscaping around both facilities used native plants that will thrive with very little maintenance or water. Both facilities were designed to take advantage of natural light, and both sort their garbage for reuse and recycling prior to disposal. This partnership proves that the public and private sectors can work together for the benefit of their communities.

WORLD TEACHERS' DAY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus to acknowledge and show our support and appreciation for teachers as we recognize World Teachers' Day on October 5.

Unlike the Tory government and its Minister of Education and Training, teachers throughout Ontario and indeed the world understand the significance of the following quote: "Education is not a product, mark, diploma, job, money -- in that order. It is a process, a never-ending one."

Teachers everywhere work hard to ensure that students under their supervision are prepared and grow as this process continues. Teachers realize that students do not come to school all equal, so through their dedication, determination and diligence, they provide a meaningful, individualized day for each of their students. They face the real crisis of reduced funding to their classrooms every single solitary day, and they handle it in a very mature, responsible, caring and loving way. Their impact is most positive on the life of each of their charges.

On a very personal basis, I would like to recognize each and every teacher I have had the honour of working with over the last 30 years. Let me mention John, Gary and Linda Kingerski, grandfather, father and mother of Stephen Kingerski, our page from Sudbury. They and all other teachers are worthy of our recognition, our support and our thanks. Teachers are the keys to unlocking the future of not only Ontario and Canada but in fact the entire world.

ST JULIAN PARK

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm happy today to share with members of the Legislature a very special celebration that we had in my riding last Sunday, and that was the reopening of St Julian Park.

The story of St Julian Park is the story of a community that came together to clean up a former dump site, a community that came together because of the efforts of a group of people who had played in St Julian Park as youngsters and found that, among their numbers, an inordinate number were contracting and dying of brain cancer. The one who led this is a woman named Dianne Whiteside because of her dedication to her brother who died of brain cancer, his cancer clearly connected to the environmental issues around St Julian Park. She made a pledge that she would see that park cleaned up and reopened within 10 years. Last Sunday she saw that dream come true.

Because of the efforts of dedicated environmentalists in my community, a very dangerous situation was cleared. It took a lot of effort, a lot of commitment, and as a result of those environmentalist issues being raised in council, winning support on council, we now have a beautiful park where the children of St Julian can play in safety forevermore.

STRATFORD BEACON HERALD

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today and announce that a very prestigious honour has just been awarded to one of the finest daily newspapers in Canada. I've just established this distinction and felt that it was important to bring this to the attention of the Ontario Legislature.

The city of Stratford, indeed the whole of Perth, is famous throughout Ontario and around the world for the many attractions that it has to offer. Its theatres, its scenery, its manufacturing, its agriculture and its community organizations are second to none.

There are more than 46 daily newspapers delivered to the Legislative Assembly each morning, and of these, only one originates in the riding of Perth. The Stratford Beacon Herald is an independent daily and is renowned for its accurate reporting and in-depth editorials.

It's this paper, the Stratford Beacon Herald, which I am proud to announce has received my red ribbon award for the best picture and headline, front page category, Canadian daily newspaper. Their award-winning edition was printed, of course, on Wednesday, September 25, 1996.

BOOKER PRIZE

Toronto's Margaret Atwood is nominated for her book Alias Grace, and Brampton's Rohinton Mistry is nominated for A Fine Balance. Both books are published by Toronto's McClelland and Stewart, who should also be congratulated.

My fear is that given this government's complete abandonment of the arts community, where will our Booker prizewinners of tomorrow come from? Margaret Atwood got her start at Coach House Press. Mike Harris called that company a bunch of welfare bums, cancelled their loan guarantee program and put them out of business.

The minister of culture has axed the publishers assistance program, wiped out the Ontario Publishing Centre, and has cut funds to the Ontario Arts Council by one third.

These cuts are coming at a time when book publishing in Canada is an unparalleled success as a cultural industry. Canadian-authored books have a 30% market share, exports of Canadian books tripled in the last five years, and as yesterday's Booker announcement indicates, Canadian writers are being acclaimed worldwide.

By making so many cuts to our arts industry so quickly, this government is seriously threatening the publishing industry's ability to produce the next Margaret Atwood or Rohinton Mistry.

I'm sure all Ontarians will join me in wishing both authors good luck when the Booker is awarded on October 29.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm giving the Premier and the Minister of Environment yet another opportunity to keep the Premier's election promise that any new landfills would be subject to, in his words, "a full environmental assessment." I'll remind the Premier that this isn't just something said off the cuff on the campaign trail; he committed himself to environmental assessment on dumps both before and since the election. He has also said it here quite adamantly in the House.

We're currently, in committee, examining Bill 76 which deals with changes -- I would say the gutting of the Environmental Assessment Act. In August I spoke to Mr Sterling, the new environmental minister, and I agreed to postpone our clause-by-clause examination so that he could look at and fix this glaring omission, among others. Well, the bill is back in committee and where is the fix? Where are the amendments? Where is the outspoken commitment on the part of the Premier that he would solve the garbage crisis in a way that didn't compromise Ontario's environment?

As the proposed bill stands, companies and municipalities will no longer necessarily have to look at alternatives such as reducing, reusing and recycling, nor will they have to look at alternative sites or designs which may be more suitable, nor will they have to examine economic and social impacts. The bill also substantially reduces public participation despite the bill's ridiculous title: the Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act.

Mr Minister, come clean and fix this bill.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): As parliamentary assistant for colleges and universities, I rise today to congratulate the Ontario College of Art and Design on its first 120 years.

For over a century, the college has acted as an incubator for some of our most talented artists and designers. The roster of their graduates reads like a who's who of the international art and design community, including A.J. Casson, a member of the Group of Seven; Mimi Vandermolen, chief designer for the Ford Motor Co; and, of particular interest to those of us in this House, one of our most famous political cartoonists, the late Duncan Macpherson.

The impact of the college and its students can be seen in every community in Ontario. Graduates have designed the logos of prominent organizations such as TSN, the Toronto Blue Jays, CIBC and Rogers Cablesystems, and faculty member Claude Gidman designed the latest streetcars and Wheel-Trans buses for the TTC.

Not content to rest on its laurels, the college recently changed its name from the Ontario College of Art to the Ontario College of Art and Design, thus incorporating a major component of its program and recognizing the importance of design to its future.

With a proud history and a bright future, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Ontario College of Art and Design for the great work it has done in promoting and enhancing Canadian talent and culture, and offer our best wishes for the college's next 120 years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In the Common Sense Revolution, we promised that we would crack down on defaulting parents who are not fulfilling their family support obligations. Later today, I will have the honour of tabling the legislation that will fulfil our government's commitment.

The Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, will replace the Family Support Plan Act, 1992. Our legislation will create the Family Responsibility Office and will give Ontario some of the toughest support payment enforcement legislation in North America.

Mr Speaker, 77% of the family support plan's cases are not in full compliance. Close to $1 billion is outstanding in child support payments. This is money owed to the children of this province. When child support is not paid, women and children are denied the support they need. They suffer and are forced to go without. Often they are forced into poverty and on to social assistance. This is unacceptable. As Attorney General, I am committed to ensuring that the needs of Ontario's children and women are met.

The legislation I will be introducing will give the Family Responsibility Office tough new enforcement measures to ensure payors meet their support obligations. Under our new legislation, we will suspend the drivers' licences of those who refuse to meet their family support responsibilities. We will report to credit bureaus the names of people who do not pay their child support. We will obtain financial statements and make orders against third parties who help support payors avoid enforcement by sheltering their assets. We will seize 50% of any funds in a joint bank account of a payor and his or her new partner.

We will enter into partnerships with the private sector to collect outstanding support payments. We will also expand the definition of income source to include commissions, salary draws, advances and lump sum payments.

In addition, we will permit recipients and payors, where both agree, to opt out of the government-mandated system. Responsible parents who continue to pay their child support do not need to be supervised by bureaucrats. Measures have been put in place to ensure that vulnerable individuals will be protected from coercion.

We will also implement a number of changes to improve service provided under the new system. Each member here knows that the service their constituents have received to date has been unacceptable. This has been the case for many, many years.

With a caseload of approximately 148,000 cases and an average of 1,400 new cases every month, the family support plan is ill equipped to handle its caseload. The plan receives up to 50,000 calls a day to its offices. Of these calls, only 6% of the callers actually get through. Almost 8,000 letters arrive daily, most of which are complaints from clients about the lack of telephone service.

The eight regional offices provided limited access to counter service. In fact fewer than 60 people a day visited each regional office, and they did so only because they were unable to reach the plan by phone.

These are the facts. The problems with the family support plan have been ongoing since 1987. The plan has never been able to serve its clients well. Our changes are a solution to these long-standing problems.

In July we began to address the problems that have plagued the plan since its inception.

To provide better and more specialized services to the public, we will consolidate all of the operations into one location. The Family Responsibility Office will begin operating in November.

Our goal is to ensure that people get their phone calls answered and callers are immediately provided with the information and service they require. Under the new system, we will more than double the number of front-line workers tackling people's concerns.

Even during the transition phase, we are now processing 25% more cheques per day than last year. As problems have occurred during the transition, we have moved quickly and decisively to correct them. Initially, some cheques were delayed. We have now fixed that problem and there is no backlog in cheques.

Both in terms of enforcement and in service, our government is committed to enhancing justice for children and women in Ontario. The Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, will achieve that goal. I am proud to say that when this bill becomes law, Ontario will have some of the most stringent family support enforcement legislation on the continent, legislation that the opposition parties didn't have the guts to bring to this Legislature.

I hope that I will have the support of the opposition parties so that the Family Responsibility Office will be able to begin collecting more money for women and children than ever before.

In the gallery today is Regina May of Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears and Heinz Paul of Families Against Deadbeats. They are keenly interested that this bill become law as soon as possible.

EDUCATION

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): For the past two days I've been meeting with my fellow ministers of education from the other provinces and territories. The message I bring to members here today is very clear: Ontario is not alone in considering and implementing major restructuring to its education system. Reform is proceeding rapidly in every jurisdiction in Canada no matter what the political stripe or region of the country.

Across Canada governments are streamlining their education systems, reducing administration, increasing standards, improving curriculum quality and placing greater emphasis on parental involvement and control.

I've told my colleagues that Ontario is strongly committed to education accountability. We need better information on how well our students are learning and, by virtue of that, how well our system is doing. I support further pan-Canadian testing and greater cooperation on key curriculum areas.

Ministers also discussed the continuing importance of technology and building technology skills. All of us see greater technology use by teachers and students as a priority. These are highlights of our discussion. I will continue to work with my colleagues elsewhere in Canada to bring real change and real improvement to learning for all people.

It's important for all members and Ontario citizens to know that we're not alone in our efforts to reform education and to significantly improve the affordability, accountability and quality of our education system for students, parents and all taxpayers.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to respond to the Attorney General. You've said you're committed to ensuring the needs of Ontario's children and women are met. Frankly, your credibility in this area has been severely undermined by the experience all of us have had over the last three months with the family support plan. If you really believed that, you would not have let those changes go through without ensuring that the program would work. For the people watching out there, thousands and thousands of women were denied their support payments because of your blundering.

The first question anybody responsible for a ministry should have asked is, "Will the women and children of this province be sure to get their rightful payments?" You didn't ask that question. You've lost your credibility in this matter. You dramatically cut 290 people out of the family support staffing, and I resent the way you presented your statement. You changed the wording to make it extremely partisan. Your credibility in this area is severely undermined.

I will guarantee you that our party will give whatever support it possibly can to make certain that women and children of this province benefit from support payments, but we will not support a government that penalizes people by mismanagement and incompetence.

There are several areas in this statement where we'll want to see more detail, particularly about the area where the recipients and payors agree. You go on to say they will be protected from coercion. We want to monitor that very carefully because there are some significant concerns about that area. Over the last few months people literally have lost their homes, have not been able to feed their children, have had difficulty in getting money for their --

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: -- and he shakes his head. I also say that the statement of the minister says the problem is solved. That is not true. Members in this Legislature know there are people entitled to cheques who still don't get them. If the minister and the government had been sincere in ensuring that the needs of Ontario's children and women were met, we would not have seen the mess we've seen over the last three months. Every member in this Legislature has gone through the turmoil of hundreds of calls to our offices from people who are suffering because of this government.

You can count on our support for meaningful, legitimate legislative change, but you can't count on our support if you don't follow through with that.

EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): We have one heavy announcement and we have one light one today. It's ironic that with all the students we have in the gallery this afternoon the minister talks about a consultation he had with other ministers of education across the country, which from time to time is good. I would have thought this would have been the kind of thing for a bulletin within your ministry to help some of the demoralized staff, it seems to me, with all of the things that people are waiting for -- the consultation on Bill 100, who does what by whom and where and on what basis, the subpanel on education that you have asked for reaction. People are waiting to hear about that.

You're consulting with others outside of the jurisdiction when I'm sure you know there are many teachers leaving our jurisdiction because they haven't got jobs. By the way, it's teachers who have jobs but are so despairing of what they see going down in education by the influence of this particular government who are leaving and looking for opportunities in Germany, looking for opportunities in Australia, looking for opportunities in the United States of America, because they can't stand the pressure and the continual attempt to degrade and undercut the professionalism of the teachers we have.

When we look at all of the areas that need attention, I would suggest to you that this kind of thing is perhaps better in a memo internally. We'd love to hear you talk about protecting the classroom, as you talk about, but of course it's not happening.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm very happy to have an opportunity to respond to the damage control statement that the Attorney General is making today and to say to him that it is absolutely disgraceful for him to make the kind of partisan statements he's made. Let's make it very clear why there have been problems in this plan since 1987 -- because there wasn't a plan before that. For 42 years of Conservative rule you did nothing to make sure that women and children got the payments to which they were entitled, and you dare to criticize the previous two governments for their incremental efforts to try and ensure that support payment entitlements are collected.

The minister is well aware because his own document says that the plan in Ontario is the best and most effective plan. We welcome the changes he's suggesting today, which, I might add, the minister knows very well are only possible because of the extensive policy work that was done by our government looking into exactly these enforcement measures. It will be very interesting to see whether the minister has solved the legal problems that do exist around these kinds of enforcement measures, because that is what delayed the implementation of these. We will see what solutions you've come up with.

In addition, what has made this the most effective plan is that it was a deduction at source from everyone. There was no pejorative issue around having a support deduction made from your paycheque. It was to be done for everyone; it was like taxes. Yet this minister is saying that we're going to permit recipients and payors, where both agree, to opt out of the plan. Then what happens? The minister says he's going to protect people from coercion on this. The whole issue of non-payment of support he knows very well is a power and control issue that is there and is very real in these cases.

It will be interesting for us to see how this minister thinks he can protect women and children from coercion in these cases.

Finally, as my colleague from Agincourt said, for this minister, who has completely bungled the whole situation around collection, has made sure that the 23% of people who were receiving their payments no longer do and have real difficulties -- and case after case shows you that they have -- to make the kind of partisan comments he made in this House today is absolutely disgraceful.

He will have our support around the enforcement measures, but he will not have our support, given the incompetence he has shown, in terms of the management of this plan.

EDUCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to respond to the non-statement of the Minister of Education and Training. Essentially what the minister informed the House today was that he attended a meeting. He went on to say that all the other provinces or a lot of other provinces are cutting just like him.

It's unfortunate that he didn't take the opportunity today, two days before International Teachers' Day, to talk about the efforts made by teachers to ensure that we have excellence in education in this province, to pay tribute to the people who every day work with students across Ontario to ensure that they can reach their potential, that they can gain the skills and abilities they need to do well in life.

This minister has gone around the province for the last year badmouthing teachers, badmouthing school boards and saying the system is broken and failing to recognize that he is the one who is causing the crisis. He took $400 million out of the system last year and he now wants to take another $600 million.

This shows what teachers think of this minister. This is what education was and this is what it's becoming, thanks to the Tory government in this province. They're eating away at the quality of education. You're destroying education in this system. Why on earth don't you recognize the role of teachers and pay for the program you need?

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery a South African delegation. Also, please welcome Dr Van Der Ross, a member of the provincial Legislature for Western Cape, Capetown, South Africa. Please join in welcoming our guests today.

ROBERT BOURASSA

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to pay tribute on the passing of former Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): Do we have unanimous consent? Yes.

Hon Mr Eves: Today Premier Harris expressed condolences to the family of Robert Bourassa and the people of Quebec on behalf of all Ontarians. It is with sadness that I rise today to pay a further tribute to M. Bourassa in this House.

For more than a quarter of a century, Robert Bourassa was at the heart of politics and events in Quebec and was a dominant figure in Canadian political life. He was a staunch and thoughtful Quebecker. He was an able and insightful Premier.

Robert Bourassa first became Premier of Quebec in 1970 at the age of 36. Then and throughout his time in politics he put a priority on ensuring a sound economy, growth and prosperity for his province. He will be remembered within Quebec as the Premier who ushered in a period of unprecedented expansion for the Quebec economy.

M. Bourassa was always a moderate who sought to avoid division and to bring people together. He gave leadership to a society that was deeply divided about questions of identity and citizenship. Whether we agree with all of his choices or not, we can never doubt that he based his decisions on what he believed was in the best interests of the people of Quebec. He found the middle path on most issues and in so doing was able to both advance Quebec's interests and preserve Confederation.

Quebec and indeed Canada has lost an important leader. M. Bourassa was always a friend to the province of Ontario. I know Premier Harris had hoped he would be with us to provide counsel and advice on the difficult choices that lay ahead of us as a country.

Over the past number of years he has worked with and was deeply respected by a series of Ontario premiers representing all three political parties in this House: Premier Davis, Premier Peterson and Premier Rae. Last fall, during the time of the Quebec referendum, he offered his thoughts to Premier Harris as he had done while we were in opposition.

Our sympathies go to the Bourassa family and to the people of Quebec. Robert Bourassa will be sadly missed.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It is with sadness and a sense of shock and a profound sense of loss that I rise to join in the tribute to Robert Bourassa today.

I did not have the privilege of knowing M. Bourassa personally so, like many others in this House, I have come to know and admire him through the continuous evidence of his personal commitment to his province and most certainly to his country.

Robert Bourassa's political career was not without its challenges. He served as Premier of his province through some of his province's and this country's most tense times. I think he was forced by those challenges to learn some obviously difficult lessons in both politics and statesmanship. But ultimately, in my view, it was his statesmanship which was the hallmark of his leadership.

I admire his efforts to reconcile the fervencies of Quebec nationalism with his own commitment to Canada and to federalism. He was I suppose a pragmatist, as many have described him; I like to think of him rather as a realist. It seemed to me that he believed in shaping realistic and workable solutions to seemingly intractable problems and that he knew it could be done only one step at a time. The Meech Lake accord is history now, but I continue to hold to a belief that he was successful in this in helping to shape those kind of pragmatic resolutions, although we all shared the lack of success in seeing them carried forward.

I know that his role in that respect has always been the subject of controversy, and his actions within Quebec probably even more so, and I think that's to be expected. The issues related to Quebec's role in Canada and the future of Confederation, after all, have been controversial for over 200 years. No one could expect to provide leadership on these issues and achieve universal agreement.

But there is no question that Robert Bourassa provided leadership. There is no question that his commitment to his province and his country were the basis of his actions and his political life. He carried forward those commitments at the expense of his own health, and we see too clearly today the price that he has paid.

M. Bourassa, on announcing his retirement from politics in September 1993, said how difficult it was to leave, and I would like to refer back to the quote of the day. "It's not an easy day." he acknowledged. "When you give the best of yourself and fight every day, and even take personal risks to achieve the protection of Quebec, you do not leave, you do not leave that function very easily." He went on to speak of his continued commitment to Canada. He said:

"The Quebec Liberal Party is opposed to the breakup of the Canadian federation because Canada, with all its problems, with all its tensions, with all its difficulties, remains by far one of the most enviable countries in the world. I cannot see how we can tell Quebeckers that we can attract the investments that we need, that we can convince investors to come to Quebec, by initiating the process of dismantling the Canadian federation."

M. Bourassa's commitment continued to underlie his actions after his retirement; they continued to underlie his actions even as he battled his own illness, even when public responsibilities no longer demanded his presence or his voice. During the last referendum debate, he worked quietly in less noticeable public places and in relatively unpublicized forums to carry forward the message of his belief that there is a place for Quebec in Canada.

All of us who share that belief in this province and indeed across the nation are deeply appreciative of his leadership and of his commitment. We will miss his presence and his quiet determined passion.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join with the Deputy Premier and the leader of the official opposition in expressing our condolences to the Bourassa family and to the people of Quebec on the passing of the former Premier.

Robert Bourassa has served his province, his people and his country throughout his lifetime. When he was first elected in 1970 he was the youngest Premier elected, and he faced enormous challenges at a time of serious, serious division within our Confederation. His commitment to the francophone community and to protecting that community in the anglophone sea of North America was well known and respected.

He served as Premier at a time, as I said, when there was serious division within the province of Quebec and the whole nation of Canada, a division that eventually led to a catastrophe from which I think Mr Bourassa never really recovered, and that was the murder of one of his cabinet colleagues. Some analysts have said that made him a cautious leader subsequently in his career.

His flexibility was well known. His ability to understand the main issue and to determine how he might be able to respond in such a way to try to bring balance to those who, on the one side, wished more extreme measures to be taken to protect French and the Québécois community and, on the other side, those who wished to protect Quebec's role in Confederation is well known.

Many people, his political opponents as well as the press and the general public, sometimes found it frustrating listening to Robert Bourassa give an answer to a question because it was sometimes difficult to know exactly what the Premier meant in terms of his position. But for those of us who knew him slightly -- and I only knew him slightly -- I understood why he took the position he did. It was a very difficult balancing act he played throughout his career, a balancing act that all of us in Canada should respect and understand that we owe a great debt to him for.

I suspect that the greatest disappointment in his career was the failure of the Meech Lake accord to be ratified in Canada. Mr Bourassa invested a tremendous amount in that agreement, as he saw it as the basis for a way that Quebec could remain and grow within the Canadian Confederation.

When I got to know him slightly it was during the negotiations that led to the Charlottetown accord. At that time Mr Bourassa was suffering from his illness; it was in remission, but many of us around the table felt he was suffering a great deal more than he was prepared to admit to us or publicly. It took a tremendous effort on his part to be able to make clear his commitment to Canada as well as his commitment to Quebec during those negotiations.

I think it's fair to say that he didn't share the same enthusiasm for the Charlottetown accord that he did for the Meech Lake accord, but he took a risk, a significant risk, in committing to that agreement. So the failure to reach a ratification across Canada must have been another disappointment for him, but it wasn't one that would lead him to quit or to back out of his commitment to finding a way to ensure that Quebec could remain within Canada and that francophones within Quebec, Quebeckers, would be able to find their rightful place within Confederation.

When he left politics, active politics, it was because of his illness and was a choice that he did not take easily. As an observer around the table watching him deal with very difficult issues, I came to respect his ability not only to understand what everyone else was saying but to try to bring people together, in a way that I think I came to understand a bit of what he had to do every day as Premier of Quebec.

I suspect one of the greatest tributes made to him on hearing of his death was said by one of his political opponents in Quebec, where he said Robert Bourassa did not have any political enemies, he only had political adversaries. I think that's quite true. Not only did he not have any political enemies, he had many, many political friends, even though there were differences.

All of us in Canada, as well as the people of Quebec, have suffered a great loss with his passing and I join with all members of the House in expressing again our sincere sympathies for the family and to Québécois.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'll begin, Minister, by having to tell you that I was rather shocked yesterday by your callous attitude during the debate that we had initiated on the cuts to the disabled and particularly on the cuts to funding for the special services at home program. I can also tell you, Minister, that your comments that the debate wasn't necessary were an insult to Linda Till and others who depend on the special services at home program and who were watching in the gallery.

But having said that, Minister, I can tell you that I was even more shocked this morning when I received a brown envelope detailing your government's secret plans to cut services for the disabled even further, to change the definition of "disabled" and to gut vocational rehabilitation services. Minister, I want to read to you from an interoffice memorandum where it states, "Ellen Waxman will now work with John Rebow on the new definition of `disability,' the definition that will be operative across all Ministry of Community and Social Services programs."

Minister, will you now admit that you are indeed breaking your promise not to cut funding to the disabled? Will you admit that you are planning to cut the number of people who qualify for government support by changing the definition of "disabled"? Is this the next step in your attack on the disabled of this province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, I did not say that yesterday's debate was unnecessary because I think the issue that we were discussing was extremely important and that issue was the support for those families that choose and can and are able to care for disabled children at home. Secondly, I will not admit that we are doing any of those things because it is not true.

Mrs McLeod: I have in my hand the copy of an interoffice memorandum dated June 25, 1996, in which it states very clearly that Ellen Waxman will now work with John Rebow on the new definition of "disability," and I suggest to you that not only are you attacking the disabled, but you're not being particularly honest about it today. You are secretly working and have been secretly working on a process to change the definition of "disabled" so that you could save money. The fact that you are not prepared to acknowledge that you are going on with this is not very honest. The fact that you're looking at it all, in my view, Minister, is absolutely unconscionable.

The document contains other revelations of what you are considering that I find absolutely shocking. I want to quote again from the minutes of that meeting in which you are debating the changes proposed to vocational services for the disabled and one that struck me was where it says, "Some may pay on a sliding scale for vocational services." Minister, if you're keeping your promise not to cut the disabled, can you tell me how you would even think about bringing in new user fees for the disabled of this province?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member across the way can choose to turn this into a personal slanging match about whose credibility is what if she wishes. This government has been very clear that the current programs for those who are disabled -- to stick them on welfare is not the place they should be. We are working to bring a new program in that will serve them better. We consulted with the community before we've done anything.

We are continuing to consult with the community before we do anything, because we want to hear their input, because this program they're currently stuck on is not serving their needs, and I resent very much the implication across the way that my credibility is in question or that my compassion and caring are in question.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you may resent very much your credibility being called into question; I resent very much the fact that a year ago we were raising the concerns about your ministry's intention to change the definition of "disabled." I grant you were not minister at that point in time. I resent very much the fact that almost a year later we get hold of an interoffice memorandum that says indeed you are not only considering it, you have staff working with other staff on a new definition of "disability." I believe that we and the disabled of this province have a right to openness in terms of what you are considering and what it will mean for the disabled of this province.

I am shocked, Minister, I am absolutely shocked that a government that has already brought in new user fees for drugs for seniors and the disabled in order to help pay for its tax cut is now even considering bringing in user fees for rehabilitation services. This comes from a government whose Premier keeps talking about giving people a hand up and not a handout. I can't think of a single program that does a better job of giving people a hand up than vocational rehabilitation services.

Minister, how can you justify the plans you are putting in place to gut this program, to attack the very people who are looking to get rehabilitation so they can re-enter the workforce? How can you consider charging them user fees?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The only gutting of vocational rehabilitation programs in this province will happen if your friends in Ottawa back out of their agreement on vocational rehabilitation.

We've been very clear that the disabled in this province deserve a better deal than they got. We've consulted with them to design proposals for a new program. We are continuing to consult with them to design a new program because no decisions have been made. We are working on proposals that will serve them better because they need better service than they got previously.

Mrs McLeod: My second question is also to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The litany of denials following the reality of cut after cut is getting a little hard to deal with. We talked to you on Monday about special services at home cuts, cuts to families from 30% to 70%, in some cases to 100%, as you try and stretch dollars thinner and thinner so they don't meet the needs at all, and you just say, "We haven't really cut programs that affect the disabled."

Yesterday we went over program after program where the disabled have been hit directly or indirectly by your government's cuts and you deny that any of that is really happening: "We haven't made any cuts to the disabled." So today, when we bring forward evidence that you are gutting these programs and that you are considering further gutting of the programs of vocational rehabilitation services that help the disabled, I'm not surprised you deny them.

Minister, the memorandum is absolutely clear. Will you simply tell us today what new definition of "disabled" you are working on? Can you tell us how much your sliding fee is going to be and can you tell us when all of this is going to be effective?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The special services at home program has not been cut. We have not cut the handicapped benefit program. We have reinvested from the Ministry of Health $170 million into more community services for the disabled. We're going to be reinvesting another $60 million from the downsizing of facilities. So I resent that we are somehow not paying attention to those issues and to those very important matters.

We've been very clear: We are looking at the program for disabled because we want to remove them from the welfare system. We want to make a new program that will work for them. There are many proposals that have been talked about with the disabled community. There will continue to be proposals talked about with the disabled community because I would much rather ensure that we are getting their advice before we do anything than the advice that I am currently being offered.

Mrs McLeod: I can tell the minister that people in the disabled community have been terrified for the past year that this ministry is indeed looking at a new definition of "disabled." They want to know now what that new definition is so they know what they're going to have to deal with, what they're going to have to fight, as this ministry continues to attack the disabled of this province, but the disabled of this province will be as shocked as we are that the idea of making people pay a fee for their rehabilitation services is something else that may appear in the legislation.

They will also be rather shocked, when you keep saying you have not cut services to the disabled, when they keep remembering the promise that was made not to cut the services to the disabled, to see very clearly in this memorandum the statement that, "We are having a discussion of the reduction of services, both through disentanglement and possibly a ceiling on the time that is eligible for service."

Again, Minister, it is clear -- we are looking for direct answers -- that this says "reduction of services." How can that mean anything other than a cut for the disabled of this province? How can that be anything other than a broken promise to the disabled of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are continuing to consult with the disabled community because we want to design a better program. We want to design a program that not only will suit their needs; we want to design a program that is sustainable and that this province can continue to support and give it the priority that we think it deserves, and I stand by that commitment.

Mrs McLeod: I have one last opportunity to get the minister to address what is clearly the discussion going on in her ministry, and I believe the disabled of this province have a right to know what they are considering. They are considering new user fees. They are clearly considering a redefinition of "disabled." They are considering ceilings on the length of time that the disabled can receive services.

The memo goes on, Minister, the other kinds of things that are being considered, and I'm just going to list some of them: reducing the funding for local transportation, eliminating 100% funding of educational assessments, eliminating funding of support services for post-secondary services, and no funding for part-time and certificate post-secondary programs.

Minister, where is this going to stop? I don't know when your consultation with the disabled is going to begin, but I certainly want to know when you are going to stop gutting the programs for the disabled of this province.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'm sure the honourable member would like to claim that this government has made decisions based on whatever brown envelopes or leaked documents she thinks she has or she may have or she may not have, or came from this civil servant or that civil servant.

We have consulted with the disability community. We will continue to do so, before we make final decisions, before we go out the door with any program, because we want to make sure that it's going to work for the disabled community.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I wanted to ask this question of the Minister of Health, since it concerns health care. Since he's not here today, I will ask it of the Minister of Labour.

Ontario is fortunate to have a province-wide network of occupational health clinics that do outstanding work in preventing workplace disease, illness and accidents. Unfortunately, your government is considering a proposal that would close the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers. The proposal says that the province's health system should simply pick up the burden, should pick up the millions of dollars in costs.

My question to the Minister of Labour: Have you done any impact studies to show the costs on our health care system that would result from moving away from accident and disease prevention in the workplace and shutting down the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member and leader of the third party, I think your comments are very premature. I am still looking at the report, and there has been absolutely no indication from me or anyone within my ministry that we have any indication of closing the clinics. We have been consulting. In fact, as recently as last week we met again with those who operate the clinics, we have met with the labour leaders, and I can tell you they are getting a very fair hearing.

Our concern is that we focus on the prevention of illness and injury in this province in a very coordinated fashion, and if those clinics indeed can support that strategy and they can support that vision, then certainly we are prepared to continue with the clinics.

Mr Hampton: Once again, it was a simple question. I asked the minister if the government has done any studies which will show how much in terms of cost will be pushed on to the health care system. The minister knows those studies have been done out there. They've been done elsewhere, in other jurisdictions. The minister knows there's a lot of information around that shows that you can save a lot of money if you focus on preventing injury and death in the workplace and if you focus on preventing illness and disease in the workplace. So I would hope you would answer that question. There are a bunch of people who want that question answered.

I was in Sudbury on the weekend and I went to the Weston Bakeries plant in Sudbury, where they won an award for the good work that the workers and the employer have done in that plant with the occupational health clinic in terms of making it a safer place to work and in terms of eliminating some conditions which could contribute to disease. Everyone there agreed that the clinic does absolutely valuable work that the regular health care system is not equipped to do; they simply don't have the expertise, don't have the databases and frankly don't have the focus.

So I want to ask you again, have you looked at the impact studies and are you prepared to guarantee the funding of these clinics rather than passing off more health care costs on to the Ministry of Health?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again to the leader of the third party, I know that what you're saying is indeed true. The people who work at the clinics are very, very proud of all they have accomplished, and they deserve to be. They have certainly made a difference.

I would again emphasize to you that our primary concern is to focus on the prevention of illness and injury in this province. We want to have the the safest, among the safest, workplaces in all the world. We are carefully evaluating the work done by the clinics. That's why it is taking so long. We have asked the clinics to give us the numbers, which they have just very recently agreed to give us, in order that we can determine how cost-efficient it is, and we are carefully studying all that data.

Again, I emphasize to you that we want to make sure we have a coordinated strategy, a coordinated vision, and that we all work together to prevent injury and illness.

Mr Hampton: In fact, that's what the clinics are. The clinics involve a cooperative enterprise between employers and workers and the workers' compensation system, and they do that kind of focused, thoughtful work in the workplace. They do the kind of work, they provide the kind of information, that for example allows mining industry companies to change some of their practices so as to avoid a high ratio of cancers in the workplace. They provide information, for example, to the steel industry and the pulp and paper industry in terms of the kinds of chemical processes to be used or to be amended.

They provide the kind of information that helped Weston Bakeries change some of its air exchange systems in Sudbury to avoid high levels of dust in the workplace. That work is already being done by these occupational health clinics.

Why can't you commit to continuing the funding for something that clearly works and clearly has the support of workers and a number of employers across the province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again to the leader of the third party, I would simply repeat what I've said before. We are attempting to put in place a preventive strategy for health and safety in this province. If indeed at the end of our complete review of the work of the clinics it's demonstrated that they do support that vision and that indeed they are willing to work with us and work with the Ministry of Labour and with the Workers' Compensation Board, then obviously they will continue to exist.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and it's about the government's continuing agenda of cuts that will affect working people and children. Your ministry's business plan talks about a sports strategy, and we understand there's to be an announcement on Friday. We have already heard from your parliamentary assistant, who made the careless comment that amateur sports groups in Ontario are welfare recipients who have to be taken off the dole.

We've heard from him and we suspect that means your strategy will simply be more Conservative cuts -- more cuts that will affect children, more cuts that will affect working families all across this province.

Let me put it to you bluntly: Can you assure us today that you will not be making more cuts to amateur sports and recreation and all of those volunteers across the province who run the minor hockey programs, the figure skating programs, the swimming programs, the soccer programs, and who do so much good work with the children and youth across this province? Can you assure us that you won't be cutting those children and youth?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): What I can assure the honourable member of is the fact that we have not had an appropriate sports strategy for the young people of this province for the last 20 years. What I have been doing over the last nine months is undertaking a new strategy so that the funds that are allocated for sports in this province clearly go to the development of the athletes and the young people in this province, something that has not happened in the last 20 years and certainly not in the last five under his jurisdiction.

Mr Hampton: The minister says there is no strategy. I don't think the minister has been out there and talked to the 700,000 Ontario volunteers who work in amateur sport and recreation across the province, because those 700,000 volunteers would say that there has indeed been a strategy: The government puts in some seed money and that money is used to organize, coordinate and develop the programs for those 700,000 volunteers who provide the program for 4.5 million children, youth and adults across the province.

The minister can have it her way; she can say there's no strategy. I'm saying to the minister there are 700,000 volunteers out there who absolutely disagree with you. What they want to know is, are you going to commit to continue to fund those amateur sports and recreations so they can carry on with delivering those important programs for children and youth across the province? Are you going to make that commitment?

Hon Ms Mushinski: In answer to the honourable member's question, he'll have to wait until Friday when I make my announcement.

Mr Hampton: The habit of this government -- and anybody who's been involved with it knows -- is to make its announcements Friday afternoon and then hope that, as the weekend passes, nobody will notice and no one will pay any attention. There are a whole bunch of people who are noticing. Donovan Bailey, Silken Laumann, Curt Harnett, people who went to the Olympics and who won medals for Canada, all of whom are from Ontario, have been blunt -- very, very blunt -- on this issue.

If you cut the funding which supports the 700,000 volunteers who go out there and do the work and deliver the services for children and youth all across this province in terms of sports and recreation, you are cutting children and you are cutting youth. You can try to identify it as the sport organizations; the people you are going to cut are going to be the children and the youth.

Let me put it to you this way. Why don't you do the courageous thing for children and youth in this province, why don't you do the right thing for children and youth in this province, and why don't you guarantee the funding which will allow those 700,000 volunteers to get on with their important work? Why don't you do that, Minister?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Perhaps I should correct the record for the leader of the third party, who represented a government that hardly met in its last year. We're meeting on a Friday morning rather than Friday afternoon to make our announcement.

Let me just tell you for the record what my ministry is doing with respect to the funding of sports and recreation in this province. To support provincial sport organizations we have a total budget of $11.8 million, and the sports strategy, which will clearly show that we're going to be flowing our dollars more effectively for sport and youth in this province, will be announced on October 4, in the morning.

For the community development strategic fund, the budget is $1.3 million; for the recreation program for small communities, which is regulation 797, the budget is $2.4 million; and for the games support program, which funds all of the games both for our youth and for our seniors in this province, the budget is $700,000. So to suggest that we are not funding sport in this province is inaccurate.

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd be prepared to yield my time to Mr Kells, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, on this subject, but I don't think he wants to come forward.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, he is now, the member for Markham. Minister, your government has decided to prey upon the most vulnerable and the most desperate people in our society, those who are addicted to gambling and those who have little chance, because they're not well connected in the Mike Harris society, of achieving a good deal of wealth. You're doing this by introducing video lottery terminals, or electronic slot machines, in bars and restaurants across Ontario to make up for the revenue you're losing as a result of your tax cut that benefits the rich and the privileged the most.

My colleagues Mr Crozier and Mr Kennedy in the justice committee have requested that in dealing with the legislation they be permitted to know everything there is to know about the circumstances surrounding video lottery terminals in Ontario. So I'm asking you, are you prepared to release to the justice committee, to members of this Legislature, to the news media and to the people of Ontario a secret report entitled Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995? Are you prepared to share that information or are you going to keep it secret?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't believe I have that currently. Perhaps the member can pass over what he does have so I can see what he is speaking of.

If you're talking about the greater issue, one of the reasons why we're looking at a number of entertainment types of initiatives -- certainly that's something that was carried forward by the previous government. But one of the problems we've had currently in this province is that we don't have a certain amount of accountability to the charities which do participate right now in terms of the roving casinos. I think anyone who's ever participated in municipal government knows of what I speak.

Certainly I've seen instances myself where certain charities that have dedicated three or four days of their time to the roving casinos are, at the end of this, really stuck with nothing or even are in the hole. That's a result of not having proper regulations, really tightly monitored systems.

If we look in terms of where we may go, it's very important for us to have very tight regulatory control, and certainly it's very important to have charities benefit. Currently, charities benefit, out of the gambling initiatives in this province, probably about $10 million to $15 million, in that range. The province right now is seeking to improve that, to make sure that charities do get the benefit of these gambling initiatives, that in fact they are the ones that will benefit from this.

Mr Bradley: That had nothing to do with the question I asked, but I will try again. The Premier and the Minister of Finance, when they were members of the opposition just to the left of me, made some excellent speeches condemning gambling on the part of government. Indeed, the Premier, during the election campaign, indicated that he wanted nothing to do with these gambling revenues. Yet we have a circumstance where you're introducing electronic slot machines to virtually every bar and restaurant in the province of Ontario and you're doing it without the kind of information that we need.

The excuse the Treasurer used when he introduced it was that somehow this was out of control in Ontario, and because so many people were breaking the law, the government had to take it over and had to, itself, introduce video lottery terminals to all of these various sites. That's like saying that since crack cocaine is illegal, the government supposedly should take that over and sell it.

I ask the member, if that is indeed the case, why will you not now release -- and I find it hard to comprehend that your staff wouldn't have this available to you -- the report called Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995? Is it because this document will not confirm what your government has stated but in fact will justify what the opposition has been saying about the introduction of VLTs across this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to repeat a request to the honourable member if he would kindly send over what he does have so I can see of what he is speaking. He's flashing over a photocopied page to me. Certainly it will be more appropriate if I get that.

Secondly, what we do feel is important is that there are proper regulatory controls -- Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario? I don't believe this is even a report provided to our ministry.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): How do you know that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Even by the title, it would certainly imply that it's not one of our ministry's documents.

Returning to what I was saying, what's important to this government is to make sure that what we do is look at things in a very tightly controlled regulatory manner, so we can make sure that whatever happens we do benefit the charities of this province, that we do make sure that the people of this province are protected, and at the same time we do look in terms of how we can support the various sectors of this province that have been asking us, and previous governments, for assistance in making sure that they still remain financially viable. That's clearly the message we got over the hearings.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it's with respect, Minister, to the report on child care in Ontario that you wrote which proposes some very radical and may I say massive changes to the child care system in our province.

I think the minister knows from previous conversations we've had a bit about my background in the child care field and that I have a great interest in this, and I think she would predict that I'll find some of her suggestions quite problematic.

I would also suggest to her that members of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care have some serious concerns, but I suspect you might dismiss those concerns, myself, because I'm a partisan politician, because your government tends to treat groups like this as special interests and dismiss them.

But I wanted to raise with you some concerns of another person, a Dr Donna Lero, who is with the College of Family and Consumer Studies at the University of Guelph and was a member of your advisory committee, and who wrote to you recently. I just want to read a couple of quotes from her letter to you.

"Indeed, with time to read the paper through, I am convinced that some of the more significant recommendations would greatly weaken the quality of care built up so carefully in this province over a long period of time -- and destabilize the system in the process.... There is no way I can support proposals that would have such a terrible effect on Ontario's children and families."

Those are pretty powerful words from a woman who is an expert in this field, who was on your advisory panel and who has now written to you and said, "Please take my name off that list; I do not want to be associated with your proposals."

Minister, has this led you to rethink the proposals in that report? Can you tell us why such a renowned expert would think so poorly of the recommendations that you have put forward?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I think as my honourable colleague probably knows, and if she doesn't know, I'll repeat it again here, I have great respect for her background in child care, which I understand spanned many years.

Also, I've met many times with the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, because again it's another of the many groups involved in child care that have serious concerns about the system as it exists today and have made many recommendations to me in the many meetings I've had, both formally with that association and with the many individuals as I consulted across the province. That is also another one of the groups that I will continue to meet with over the fall as we do consultation on this report, because I would like to stress that these are proposals.

These are proposals that try to reflect the balance of the input we received from across the province when we talked to all the different groups and the parents that were involved in child care.

I'd like to also note that Donna Lero, whose input and advice I was very pleased to receive as a member of my advisory committee -- that letter, as you will also note, says that she is still interested in participating and working and giving advice to this government, and I think her expertise has certainly been very, very valuable.

The purpose of those proposals, the purpose of what we're trying to do when we make final decisions as to what we will do with child care, is to take that $600 million that we have and spend it in a way that will provide more quality child care for more families but in a way that is fair and equitable. I think that's --

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The question is answered.

Hon Mrs Ecker: -- the appropriate thing for us to do.

Ms Lankin: Minister, you mentioned that Dr Lero is interested in continuing to advise the government. I guess I want to know, are you taking the advice that she's put forward in this letter?

Many of us would like to advise the government and advise you with respect to your report. I called your ministry to find out how the consultations were going to take place. I was told, "Well, you can send in a letter over the next month." I said, "Surely the minister's going to go out and meet with people?" "Well, the minister will be meeting with a few stakeholders." "Could I see the list of who those are?" "No, that's not public."

Last Friday members of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care went to your office. They were met with locked doors and a security guard. Someone said they would set up a meeting with them. As of today, they've not heard back from your office. There are members of the coalition in the gallery today.

Minister, I'd like to get two commitments from you today. There's a whole lot of commitments I'd like from you over a long period of time, but today, two.

One, will you agree over the next week to meet with the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care? And when you meet with them, will you agree to discuss what is an appropriate process of public consultation so that we can ensure that not just a handpicked group of people that you're going to meet with privately get to have input into these proposals that are going to have a massive effect on the child care system, but that parents and child care workers and others who are concerned for the wellbeing of our children across this province get a chance to meet publicly with you to talk about your proposals for child care reform?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care had made an appointment, I might have been there Friday when they chose to show up unannounced and demand to see me. As I repeat, I've met with them before, I've met with many individuals within their association in the past several months as I've gone through the consultation. The list of groups that I've met with before in the back of the report, those are the same groups --

Ms Lankin: Answer the question.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If you'd let me finish, Ms Lankin, I might answer the question -- the same group of individuals that we will be meeting with again in the future. I would like to repeat, if the honourable members would like to listen, I am very prepared to meet with all the groups that represent the wide range of child care in this province. There are groups who believe that what this government should be doing is not spending money on child care centres but giving that money to parents so they can choose to stay home and look after their children.

There are also groups like the coalition who believe that there must be appropriate child care centres and that those must be funded by the government. So there is a whole range of views out there from many groups. The Ontario Coalition is one of those groups. I remain willing to meet with them as I've met with them before and I will continue to meet with these groups as we develop our final proposals.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, as you may be aware, the new Casino Rama has opened this summer, by all accounts to great success. However, I understand that with the increased traffic in the area there has been a great concentration of traffic problems in the Rama area. What is your ministry doing to try and resolve the traffic problems in the vicinity of the Rama casino?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for the question. I think it is a good question and certainly the Ministry of Transportation is aware of the traffic problems that are being created because of the casino opening at Highway 12 at the Atherley Narrows. The ministry has been working very closely with Ontario Provincial Police, Casino Rama and the Ontario Casino Corp to find ways to minimize the congestion while working on a permanent solution to the traffic problems.

We are carrying out improvements to major intersections and we also have changeable message signs which have been installed. We also have, through the casino association, an offsite parking lot so at least some of the congestion is going to be alleviated.

One other thing I'd like to share with you: GO Transit, along with CN Rail and Casino Rama, have started a new train service to the casino which has been well received, I might add, and certainly provides a convenient alternative for the people who do not want to drive. By leasing the trains to CN at times when they would be ordinarily just sitting there doing nothing, GO Transit is maximizing its resources. I certainly would like to commend CN and GO Transit and the casino association for creating the Rama express.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Palladini: The honourable members across the room here are not too enthusiastic about these concerns, but I want to just say that we will continue to work together to ensure that the reconstruction of Highway 12 will begin in the spring of 1997 and the improvements will include a twinning of the Atherley Narrows bridge --

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Palladini: -- and also highway widening. We hope to have this in place by early 1999.

Mr Grimmett: A supplementary question: The cost of these repairs --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Grimmett: -- are they being shared by the casino?

Hon Mr Palladini: Mr Speaker, I apologize. Would you ask the member to repeat the question? I was not able to hear the question.

Mr Grimmett: Will the cost of these road improvements be shared by the casino?

Hon Mr Palladini: I believe the casino operators would be willing to contribute to these improvements and I assure the member that this is being discussed as we go along.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it will only take a simple yes. Your stated plans are to eliminate the service of driver examination centres in Hamilton Mountain, Welland, Niagara Falls, Cayuga, Midland, Strathroy, St Thomas, Cambridge, Trenton, Port Hope, Winchester and, in my riding, Leamington. I've written to you and I've spoken with you about these closures. Will you review the information I've sent to you and consider that this valuable service be continued for the residents of Essex South?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for the question. Yes, he has written to me for further consideration of the request his constituents have made to him. I've even talked to the honourable member about the situation, about what we are faced with. I concur that we must be able to deliver services to the people of Ontario, but at the same time we must also be able to utilize the facilities we have in place to deliver those services. There are facilities throughout the province of Ontario that are not being maximized.

Unfortunately, this is the situation we find ourselves in, and until we can see that we can maximize these service deliveries, we are going to have to make decisions that are not very favourable and not very easy to be done. I will make sure I get back to the honourable member with my final decision.

Mr Crozier: That surprises me, because the office has been advised that it's closing at the end of October. I appreciate the fact that you will get back to me. Let me advise you of this: The criterion that you've used, and yet haven't defended, is that the centres have to be within 50 kilometres. This centre is in excess of 50 kilometres away from Windsor and/or Chatham.

I've asked how, with one office in Windsor, you can serve more than 300,000 constituents. You gave me an answer at one point that Leamington has only 14,700 people and you quoted the source of your information. This centre serves an immediate area of more than 40,000 and we have many people coming out of Windsor to use it. There are five driving schools in the area which will be affected by your decision.

I will ask you to do this when you get back to me with your final answer: Please look beyond the percentages and look at the people, and look beyond the statistics and look at the service. Will you do that? Because the people in Essex South think you are a person who will listen, and I hope you will take these arguments into consideration.

Hon Mr Palladini: Again, I want to thank the member for his question. We have given the member certain information on how we might have arrived at some of these closures. Population is one part of the entity; travel is another part of the entity. At the same time, we also have to take a look at the facility and how it is being utilized. Certain facilities are not being maximized to their full utilization -- in other words, running at 50%, 60%, 70% of the capacity they're able to do -- versus other issuers within the same range.

Therefore, we have to make a decision on closing certain centres; also because of the fact that we are able to get out of a lease, which is possibly expiring at a more reasonable date. These are decisions.

One of the things I want to say to the honourable member is that we are committed to making sure that we are going to do better for less, but I'm also saying to the honourable member that just because we are closing certain centres doesn't mean the services available are going to be fewer. On the contrary, I anticipate better service.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. It is common knowledge that James Lonnee was placed in a segregation cell with another youth, a youth who has now been charged with his murder. After this tragic incident, you agreed that youth should not be doubled up in segregation cells. Did you take action on this? Did you send out a directive prohibiting the double bunking of youth in one segregation cell?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I indicated earlier, when this tragic incident occurred, that I'm not going to get into details related to the incident, how it occurred and what actions the government may be contemplating, given the fact that there is an ongoing police investigation and that there will be an internal ministry investigation following completion of the police investigation.

Ms Lankin: Maybe you misunderstood my question. It was not with respect to James Lonnee; it was with respect to youth who are still alive in the custody of your provincial institutions and what steps you're taking to assure them. The Premier, in answer to a question in this House around youth in young offenders institutions, said "Let me assure you that I have taken what steps I believe are appropriate to ensure that the safety of the children is utmost in our minds. I think the parents can have utmost confidence in that." So it's bizarre to hear you say you're not going to tell us what actions you've taken to protect youth at this point in time.

Let me tell you something about what's going on in your ministry right now. Last night at Metro West Detention Centre there were eight youths being housed in five segregation cells. That obviously means that three of these cells were doubled up -- double bunking.

From reviewing your ministry's own annual report on the isolation of youth, the most common reasons for youth to be put in segregation are for assaults on peers, suicide prevention and crisis management. Your own policy on segregation sets out that the purpose for this is to separate them from others.

The system failed James Lonnee. You said several days after his death that youth should not be doubled up in segregation cells. We know it's too late for us to do anything to help James Lonnee, but it's not too late for us collectively to take steps to protect other youth in the system. In view of the murder of James Lonnee and your commitments and the Premier's commitments, will you commit today that no youth will be double bunked while in a segregation cell from this day forward?

Hon Mr Runciman: That policy is being reviewed. There are situations where it may be appropriate for double bunking, if it's a suicide question, even in segregation. Indeed, we are reviewing that, but we have some real limitations with respect to segregation of young offenders. I've talked about those in the House before. These are not new. They've been around the system for some time, and we're attempting to address them.

Some of these problems are not going to be solved overnight, but at least we are taking the tough decisions. We've made a decision with respect to training. The former government was advised to deal with that. They declined to deal with that. We are restructuring the jail system so that we can move young offenders out of adult facilities. We're doing that; the former government declined to take that tough decision.

I thank the member for raising an issue last week with respect to Vanier. We investigated that situation and found out that young offenders in that area -- and we believe it's in violation of the Young Offenders Act -- were coming into contact with adults, being fed by adults. We have stopped that policy. That policy was instituted two years ago by the NDP government. I ask this member, where was she around the cabinet table when that decision was taken?

We are doing what's right, we are doing what's responsible and, finally, but most important, we are doing what's long overdue.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Air quality is an issue which is of great concern to all the residents of Ontario and certainly to us in southwestern Ontario. I was interested to read this morning that the pilot study that's been going on here in the GTA on vehicle tailpipe emissions will be drawing to a close at the end of October. All of us know that vehicle emissions are major contributors to the quality of our air. Could you please inform the House, as the minister responsible for the environment, what options you are looking at for reducing vehicle emissions in Ontario?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm glad that members of the government back bench are interested in the environment. I wondered when I was going to get a question in this House.

I was down in Windsor last Thursday and met with the Windsor advisory committee on air emissions. They were very concerned as well in their community about this very significant problem we have in Ontario. Health Canada estimates that we have some 1,800 Ontarians who died prematurely due to the bad air we have in this province. That's why I'm looking at a vehicle emission testing program which, quite frankly, was first thought of by my predecessor, the Honourable Brenda Elliott. I'm going to follow on her initiation and put this program into place.

The goal of this program is to provide vehicle owners with a convenient, economical and practical testing for their vehicles. I believe that if we take some positive steps, we then can request some of our border states to take some remedial steps as well. I'm happy to address this problem head on. It hasn't been addressed by any previous governments in the past and I will look forward to doing these kinds of things to improve the air quality of Ontario.

Mr Carroll: Obviously all our emission problems are not generated in our province; a lot of them are a result of what happens in the northern American states. What plans have you to deal with that particular problem that originates outside of our jurisdiction?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I mentioned in my answer to the previous question, I believe that if we lead by example in this regard, then we can go to the border states, where over 50% of the problem is created for Ontario, and say to them: "We're doing our part. How about you doing something on your part?" I've already met with the Secretary of the Environment for the state of Pennsylvania and discussed with him the needs that we have in this province to reach some understanding of how we benefit, unfortunately, from their air pollution. I have asked our federal minister, Mr Marchi, to act aggressively on this issue.

It appeared earlier this month that he was not doing that. I will continually be on his back to make certain that he is pressing this issue with his people in the United States. Further, I intend to meet with other people in the border states to impress upon them our concern over this issue. This is a big issue for the people of Ontario and particularly for the people of Chatham-Kent and the Windsor area.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a real question for the Minister of Environment this time. A study was conducted in Hamilton-Wentworth by the Ministry of Energy and Environment. In this study, an alarming conclusion was drawn regarding the levels of small particle pollution known as PM10s in Hamilton's air. This study revealed that 20 to 25 deaths a year are directly attributed to this pollutant. This study was confirmed by your chief air quality assessment officer, Dr Dennis Corr, who said: "People are dying from air pollution.

There is no doubt the level of particulate pollution we're experiencing in Hamilton is causing health effects." Mr Slater, your district director, also said: "This particle is not under any ministry regulations. It is causing serious effects in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I wrote to the Premier August 15. We have not had a response from you to this issue. It is very serious. It is important, particularly to the people of the east end, which I represent. Will you commit today to, first of all, immediately bring in regulations to control this particle and put standards for industry? Second, will you commit today for your ministry to carry out a health study in the east end of Hamilton to see the impact and the fallout from this pollution particle?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm very concerned about this particular issue and I've had some initial briefings on it. We have in the past done extensive testing in the Hamilton area with regard to this problem and I'm aware of it. We're working on a solution to it and I undertake to the member that we'll do everything in our power to arrest this particular air pollutant.

Mr Agostino: Simply, that is not good enough. This is the ministry that has gutted regulations. Your ministry shut down the environmental testing unit in the east end of Hamilton. The monitoring station in the east end that monitors environmental particulates in the air was shut down by your ministry a month and a half ago in the area most affected. For you, Minister, to simply say, "We're doing the best we can," is not good enough. This is not a lobby group. This is not some sort of outside group that carries out the study.

This was your own ministry that said 20 to 25 people a year are dying in my community as a result of this particular pollutant that is in the air which your ministry has the responsibility to control.

Minister, I'm not looking for some sort of feel-good answer today. I'm looking for a specific answer to a specific question. Once again, I urge you and ask you, will you commit to immediately bring in regulations to control PM10, the particulate in question, and will you commit to carrying out a health study for the east end of Hamilton so my residents can be assured the proper precautions will be taken care of and that your ministry's doing everything it can? Please give me a direct answer. This is not a political question; this is serious. It is dangerous to the people of Hamilton. What will you do and when will you do this?

Hon Mr Sterling: We are working with the federal government to develop standards for this particular item. I do treat it as a serious item, as I do treat all environmental problems, particularly when we have alarming reports as the member has said. That is why I'm cautious in terms of answering these questions as to what I can truly achieve over a short period of time.

Therefore, I would only say to the member that we are developing standards with regard to this particular kind of air pollutant with the federal government so that we will have a good standard, a standard we can stand behind and a standard which can be achievable and we can find out those who are causing it and stop them from causing it.

SERVICE OF THE SPEAKER

The Speaker (Hon Ed Doyle): The time for question period has expired. Before we get on to motions, I wonder if members of the House would kindly bear with me for just a moment. There are a few things that I would like to say.

When I first accepted this position that was so kindly offered to me a week ago, there had been a rumour that there was an agreement between the party leaders that I would be resigning at the end of a week and today I would like to set the record straight. The rumour is true and I'll be stepping down at 12:01 on October 3, so I've stretched it a minute into the next day. That's to ensure that should things go beyond 6 o'clock tonight, there'll be somebody to cover.

I want to say a few other things before I go too, if you will indulge me for just a moment. I would like to thank the House leaders who were so kind to me. To David Johnson, to Jim Bradley, the member for St Catharines, the member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, these two gentlemen I see in the hallways and we stop and we joke with each other and I have a great deal of respect for them and I thank them for their nomination and I truly appreciate it.

I may be called out of order for what I'm about to say next --

Interjection: By whom?

The Speaker: Well, I'll rule in my own favour -- but I would also like to thank the Clerk, Mr DesRosiers, Alex, Debbie and now Donna, who's been here; they've all been a great help to me in this week that has gone by. I thank you very much for all your assistance and your confidence. Thank you very much.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, might I just say, on behalf, I believe, of everybody in this House, our sincere appreciation to you for your excellent service over this past week, certainly in somewhat difficult circumstances on very short notice. To accept this challenging position is certainly a reflection on yourself and I know that every member would wish to express appreciation for your leadership, your dignity, your grace, your good humour, your natural approach, being attentive.

I've noticed how attentive you've been to all the members on both sides of the House as they've spoken and I'm sure that the members appreciate that.

You haven't been too tough on the members, I might say. However, I think the proceedings have improved somewhat under your direction and you did attempt to make some difficult rulings on points of order, as I can recall, and on points of personal privilege.

There's probably great relief here today among many of the candidates for this position that indeed you are stepping down. I've heard a draft Ed movement rumbling through the chamber here, but too late.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Never too late, Ed.

Hon David Johnson: Never too late.

I would only say that I'm sure those running for the position, and particularly the successful candidate tomorrow, would be well served having watched you in action over this past week. Thank you very much for your service.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the official opposition, the Liberal Party, I would like to echo the comments of the government House leader. You were very kind to take this position for that short period of time. I can tell you that there was no question among the three House leaders when your name came forward as a possibility. I know it was a surprise to you. You were approached by the government House leader, but it was with the full concurrence and enthusiasm of the two opposition House leaders.

We appreciate what you have done. It's extremely difficult when all of us sit in the House and think we know the rules, but none of us has to apply them until we're in the chair. I know you were ably assisted by those at the table and others.

We appreciate your wonderful sense of humour in the chair, your humility which you have demonstrated on so many occasions, and we are proud to have had you as our Speaker, even if it was only for a period of a week. We hope that if not a portrait, at least a Polaroid photograph will be placed in the hallways of this Legislature. I certainly would not object to your keeping the robes, if indeed you saw fit to do so.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of our caucus, I want to express our thanks as well for your taking the chair in this period over the last week and for the grace with which you've exercised your duties.

As I listened to and participated in the standing ovation, I was trying to analyse what exactly prompted many members of the House to stand and applaud. I'm sure most of us, if not all, were applauding the way you've held yourself, handled your position over the last week. I suspect there were a few who may be candidates for this position who were applauding because you said you weren't going to run again, and I suspect many of them were doing that with some relief, because you have done very, very well.

I was thinking also that if you can get a standing ovation after sitting in this chair for three days, imagine what you might have achieved if you'd be here for three years. The problem is it might have had the exact opposite effect. I know you feel the concern that many who aspire to your office should be thinking about seriously over this evening and tomorrow morning.

I want to again thank you for taking this position. I have some sympathy with those who take interim positions. I have some experience in that regard. I want to compliment you particularly on your genuine interest in the proceedings of the House before you while you were responsible for applying the rules and for your self-deprecating humour, which I think has stood you in good stead as you've dealt with issues you didn't expect to deal with only a few days before. So again thank you on behalf of all members of the House for doing this for the assembly.

The Speaker: I wonder if I can indulge you for one more moment, please, before I recognize my colleague from Hamilton Centre. I would like to correct a mistake I made to ensure that people don't think I'm pulling a doublecross here. I gave the wrong time for my resignation, so I'll correct that as being 12:01 am, October 3. We want to make sure we don't hang on a little longer.

To the new Speaker, I wish Godspeed. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Thank you, Speaker Doyle. I speak on behalf of the citizens of the same community, yours and mine: Hamilton-Wentworth. Much has been said on behalf of all the members here, but I want to tell you on behalf of the close to half a million people who live in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth the great pride you have brought all of us in the short but important time you've sat in that chair. There is great pride.

Whether one is a New Democrat, Tory or Liberal, we have benefited by virtue of your ascension to that position, the job you've done and the grace and humour you've brought to this position. I want it in Hansard and on the record forever that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, sir, are very proud of the job you have done and look forward to a much longer, distinguished career as you spend your time in politics.

The Speaker: I take it there are no motions, so are there -- oh, there are more people. The Chair recognizes -- I'm sorry, but I believe Mr Bartolucci was first. The Chair recognizes the member for Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): That's why I really like him as the Speaker. You have a vision of the back row, and I really appreciate it.

The Speaker: I can hear from back there quite well too.

Mr Bartolucci: Are we in petitions now?

The Speaker: I believe that to be correct.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is the first of many, I'm sure.

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two of Sudbury's hospitals."

I proudly affix my name to this petition. I'm sure it will be one of many about the same item.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name to theirs.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to present two petitions from my constituency presented to me by Christopher Snider and Donna Dubreil, which read as follows:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

GARDE D'ENFANTS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

"Attendu que des soins de garderies de haute qualité contribuent d'une manière significative au développement sain de tous les enfants ;

"Attendu que des recherches ont prouvé que les éducateurs d'enfants qui sont bien rémunérés et qui ont de bonnes conditions de travail fournissent des soins pour enfants de très haute qualité ;

"Attendu que le meilleur système de garderies pour les enfants en est un qui est accessible, abordable et réglementé à l'égard de la qualité ;

"Attendu que les récents compressions de garderies déstabilisent entièrement le système de garderies en Ontario,

"Nous, les soussignés, pétitionnons l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme suit :

"Que tous les financements publics pour les soins de garderies soient remis en place, incluant les contributions, les fonds capitaux et la subvention opérationnelle ;

"Que tous les présents engagements en ce qui a trait à la subvention de salaires, contributions pour l'égalité salariale et toute autre programme de financement et/ou politique qui maintient la stabilisation des soins de haute qualité pour les enfants et les familles de la province de l'Ontario soient maintenus ;

"Que des audiences publiques soient tenues dans le cadre de la revue des services de garderies."

J'y ajoute ma signature.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition that is addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years,

"We, the undersigned, request that the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

This petition has been signed by 3,500 workers who live in northeastern Ontario. It was organized by Mr Wayne Fraser, who is the area coordinator for a number of local steel unions right across northeastern Ontario, and I want to thank him for his initiative. I have signed my name to this and I agree with the petitioners entirely.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): These petitions concerning ammunition regulations, which are supported and are being distributed by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, read as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government under former Premier Bob Rae passed legislation, Bill 181, the ammunition control act, placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition in Ontario; and

"Whereas the provisions contained in Bill 181 are time-consuming, onerous and create unnecessary red tape; and

"Whereas the records produced as a result of the provisions of Bill 181 cannot reasonably be used to track criminals and are in many locations across Ontario where such records are kept insecurely stored and thus available for criminal use as a shopping list of homes with firearms; and

"Whereas Bill 181 was passed without any discussion with law-abiding gun owners such as farmers, collectors, hunters and recreational shooters, those who are most affected by the legislation; and

"Whereas Bill 181 will do nothing to combat the illegal use of ammunition,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal the ammunition control act, protect the rights of responsible firearms owners and work for tougher penalties against those who criminally misuse firearms and ammunition."

I support this petition and therefore affix my signature to it.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a petition from some of my constituents to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, are residents of Rayside-Balfour. We are concerned with the erosion of health care services in our community. A recent cap on physician billing to OHIP has resulted in the loss of the registered nurse at the Chelmsford Medical Centre. This fact, coupled with the recent loss of a family physician in the town of Chelmsford, will mean that many residents will not be able to see a physician when needed, if at all.

"We understand the difficulties in recruiting new physicians to the town, especially in light of the cutbacks, and therefore suggest that measures be taken by the town or by the province to maintain the services we presently have.

"We hope that arrangements may be made to either except the billing cap in this instance or make provisions to pay for the services of the registered nurse outside of the billing cap.

"Many of the residents of Rayside-Balfour are without medical service and we encourage you not to let the situation get worse."

I have affixed my signature to it.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the employers involved in sending out family support plan payments of the garnisheed wages of the payers have 30 days to send those payments to the family support plan offices; and

"Whereas the recipients of those family support plan payments (single mothers and children) face severe financial hardships such as eviction, food bank visitation, medical costs etc during the 30 days waiting for the arrival of those payments;

"I, Jody Wilson, and the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To reduce the 30-day response time of the employers tending the family support plan payments to three to seven working days from the time the paycheque shows the garnishee of the wages, so that the recipients (women and children) can plan their living expenses on a more appropriate and regular basis and lessen the fear of financial hardship and possibly eliminate crises."

This is signed by a large number of my constituents, mostly from the Elliot Lake area.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mr Speaker, as you know, this coming Friday, October 4, the Health Services Restructuring Commission will be coming back to Thunder Bay to render what they're calling their final verdict in terms of the restructuring and the hospital closures in Thunder Bay. All through this summer we've been collecting petitions and letters, and I've got a pile several feet high here, many thousands of petitions. I will just read one of them, if I may.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We do not believe you have made the best choice for the health care system in northwestern Ontario. We are deeply concerned with the speed and the amount of bed reductions you have dictated.

"We are also concerned with your intention to close three hospitals out of the five currently operating in Thunder Bay. These hospitals, although seeming to be concentrated, are in fact providing essential regional service. By reducing the total number of beds from 954 to 526, and in the process eliminating psychiatric and chronic care hospitals, the 428-bed reduction will leave the lives of our families, friends and ourselves at risk.

"If it was your intention to act on behalf of the interests of the public, we, as members of that public, ask you to reflect upon your conscience, for you will be ultimately responsible for the error in this decision."

I am proud to sign this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition signed by 573 constituents of Essex South and it's with regard to rent controls in general and those controls that are being lifted with regard to mobile parks specifically. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has decided to replace the current rent control program, and with their proposed tenant package they are cancelling the Rental Housing Protection Act and are allowing a landlord, once a unit becomes vacant, to negotiate an incoming tenant's rent without regulatory restriction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government re-examine its proposed abolishment of the rent control program as we do not agree with the changes that the government wishes to make, and that the mobile home owners should have separate consideration."

I support this petition, and in support, I affix my signature to it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'd like to use this opportunity to read another one of the petitions that's come forward throughout the summer regarding the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the decision to close hospitals in Thunder Bay.

"Members of the Legislative Assembly:

"We are writing to voice our strong objections to what you plan to do to health care in Thunder Bay. It is unacceptable to take $40 million a year away from our hospitals and leave us without the services we need. Reinvesting the dollars you save in Thunder Bay somewhere else won't give us access to hospital care at home. Health care is critical to our community. I ask that you reconsider your decision. You must not leave us with so little."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Martiniuk from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 75,

An Act to regulate alcohol and gaming in the public interest, to fund charities through the responsible management of video lotteries and to amend certain statutes related to liquor and gaming / Projet de loi 75, Loi réglementant les alcools et les jeux dans l'intérêt public, prévoyant le financement des organismes de bienfaisance grâce à la gestion responsable des loteries vidéo et modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux alcools et aux jeux.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

I believe we have also a motion on the part of Mr Laughren from Nickel Belt.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 19th report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This is simply the report of the committee that met this morning dealing with government appointments.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS D'ALIMENTS

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to establish the Family Responsibility Office, protect the interests of children and spouses through the strict enforcement of support orders while offering flexibility to responsible payors and make consequential amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Bureau des obligations familiales, visant à protéger les intérêts des enfants et des conjoints grâce à l'exécution rigoureuse des ordonnances alimentaires tout en offrant une certaine souplesse aux payeurs responsables, et apportant des modifications corrélatives à des lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE

Ms Bassett, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 70,

An Act to provide Co-operative Education and Film Industry Tax Credits, to create Economic Growth, to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget and to amend certain Acts administered by the Minister of Finance / Projet de loi 70, Loi créant des crédits d'impôt pour l'éducation coopérative et l'industrie cinématographique, favorisant la croissance économique, mettant en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996 et modifiant des lois dont l'application relève du ministre des Finances.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I am pleased to speak to the third reading of Bill 70. I move it and it's the Tax Credits and Economic Stimulation Act, 1996.

This bill implements key measures of our 1996 budget to restore confidence, create jobs and spur economic growth. Bill 70 has three important goals: It aims to assist employers hiring post-secondary students in co-op education programs, to help out the television and film industry, and to encourage small and medium-sized businesses that need new sources of capital to expand and create jobs.

Our college and university students are the future of this province. We must ensure they have enhanced employment opportunities that allow them to lead productive and independent lives. By combining academic studies and work experience, Ontario's cooperative education programs benefit both students and employers. It gives students real world experience and market-relevant skills. It makes it easier, I feel, for students to make the transition from school to the workplace and it helps students earn money to pay for their own education. It also provides real economic benefits to employers and improved partnerships between businesses and educational institutions.

At present, more than 20,000 students are enrolled in co-op programs in Ontario's colleges and universities. However, there is a shortage of co-op placements and this is why we are creating a cooperative education tax credit. This refundable tax credit will provide employers with a tax credit of up to 10% of the cost of hiring a student in a recognized co-op program.

The credit is capped at a maximum of $1,000 per co-op placement. It will encourage employers to provide more co-op opportunities to meet existing demand. Students will benefit from more placement opportunities. Because of the current difficulty in placing students, universities and colleges have been reluctant to expand their co-op programs. This tax credit will also encourage those universities and colleges to expand such programs.

The tax credit will also encourage private sector employers to play a more active role in Ontario's education system. The skilled graduates of co-op programs make Ontario a more competitive environment and they certainly attract investment to the province.

Bill 70 also assists Ontario's film and television industry. Ontario has become one of North America's major film production centres. Our highly developed film and television industry has an infrastructure that attracts major film and television productions to the province. It provides skilled jobs for many Ontarians and generates in excess of $500 million annually in production activity in this province alone.

However, the industry faces aggressive competition from other jurisdictions. The bill implements our budget commitment to provide a film and tax credit to maintain Ontario's competitive advantage. It will also create more jobs in this highly skilled, knowledge-based sector of Ontario's economy. This refundable film tax credit will equal 15% of eligible labour costs. The tax credit rate will be doubled for first-time filmmakers on the first $240,000 of eligi