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

November 20, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L026 - Mon 20 Nov 1995 / Lun 20 Nov 1995

PORTRAIT OF FORMER SPEAKER

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

HURON COUNTY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

YOUTH SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

CHILD DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMISSION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ONTARIO FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMISSION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

INVESTMENT FUNDS

EDUCATION POLICY

COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

NURSING HOME

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

RUNNYMEDE CHRONIC CARE HOSPITAL

INFORMATION SERVICES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

ST MARY'S SECONDARY SCHOOL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

PORTRAIT OF FORMER SPEAKER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Before beginning the business of the House this afternoon, may I remind all honourable members of the unveiling of the portrait of the former Speaker, Mr David Warner. The unveiling will take place in the lobby of the building at the grand staircase at 6:15 this evening.

In the past, the proceedings of the unveiling ceremony have been recorded by Hansard. Would it be the wish of the House to include this as an appendix to Hansard? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Later today I will introduce a private member's bill entitled

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly. This bill, if approved by my colleagues in the Legislature, will require elected members of this House to swear allegiance to both the Queen and our country, Canada. Never in our country's history has it been more important that we as leaders in our communities stand up and speak out about our love for and our allegiance to our country, Canada.

When I was in Montreal for the unity rally in October, I was struck by the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were taking the time to speak out for Canada, thousands of people taking time to say, "I'm proud to be a Canadian." It was a very powerful message and an important message in the history of our country.

I feel that as leaders in our community today taking an oath of office, we should also state how proud we are to live and serve in this wonderful country. We can become the first legislative body in Canada in which members take an oath of allegiance to Canada. I am encouraged by the fact that the Premier has supported such a concept in the past, and I hope that all members will support this endeavour.

I'd like to stress that the tradition of the oath including the Queen is very important to me. My intention is not to take anything away from the significance of the Queen, but to have a stronger oath which includes and makes reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to Canada.

I'm hopeful that together, in the spirit of unity, we too can change our oath of office to include Canada. I urge members of the House to support the bill.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise again to call the attention of the Solicitor General and members of the House to the need for a coroner's inquest into the death of Miss Kim Butler, and now unfortunately her daughter, Amanda, as a result of the accident that took place near Whitefish on Highway 17 a couple of weeks ago.

As has been stated in this House, prior to the cutbacks taking effect in highway maintenance, this accident occurred many hours after the storm had subsided in good weather conditions, but unfortunately the highway was still not clear. It was still in a horrendous condition, according to the investigating OPP officers.

It is really important that there be an independent inquiry, a coroner's inquest, that will tell not only the members of the family and other residents of northern Ontario, but all of us, what the possible causes were of this accident and what changes should be done in terms of highway maintenance in future to avoid similar accidents if possible.

I reiterate the need for a coroner's inquest and I would hope that the Solicitor General would use his office to ensure such an inquest is held into the deaths of both members of the Butler family.

HURON COUNTY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): As another year's harvest comes to an end, I am reminded of the hardworking people of my riding, Huron county. John Galt was the founding member of the Canada Co, and he originally envisioned the settlement of Huron county as an agricultural experiment. Today, Huron county is the most productive county in Ontario and a world leader in numerous areas of agricultural technology and innovation.

Huron county is an agricultural leader in gross farm receipts, acres of farm land, number of farms, hens, pullets, white beans, winter wheat, barley and rutabagas.

Almost one fifth of the Huron county labour force is directly employed by agriculture, making it the most prominent Canadian agricultural region east of Winnipeg. Agriculture offers a wide variety of rewarding jobs and opportunities to the residents of Huron county. Huron county farmers are finding innovative ways to add value to their farm products and to supplement their farm income. Huron county agriculture is something for us to be proud of.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This past weekend the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses held a membership meeting to discuss the recent Harris government cuts to first- and second-stage housing shelters. Today at a downtown hotel OAITH held a press conference to respond to the Harris government's unprecedented attack on abused, vulnerable women and their children here in Ontario.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses represents 67 front-line emergency shelters and services for abused women and their children across this province. OAITH did not escape the axe of the Harris government and had its funding cut by 100%. Adding insult to injury, or should I say insult to their demise, this cruel cut came on the eve of Wife Assault Prevention Month.

In Ontario, we have witnessed the most ruthless cuts to people who need them most: vulnerable women and their vulnerable children. The government has displayed a total lack of regard towards abused women, which was clearly illustrated in their refusal to acknowledge Wife Assault Prevention Month until it was pointed out by the opposition.

It is time that this government stood up for abused women and gave them the hand up that the Premier frequently speaks about, rather than continuing to push them down and to remove and cut their safety net, which they need to have the support to get on with their lives.

YOUTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'd like to remind the Premier today of yet another organization in the Sudbury area which has been hit by Conservative funding cuts.

In 1986, the John Howard Society of Sudbury began a community youth support project to serve special-needs youth who were at risk of long-term dependency on the welfare system. The aim was to assist these young people in preparing for and gaining employment.

To this end, the project involved counselling services to encourage youth to stay in school, support for young people who had left the formal educational system but wanted to access upgrading and vocational programs and links to youth employment services to provide job-readiness training.

The project also focused on dealing with substance abuse of clients and assisting young people in conflict with family, school, society and the law. Support was provided to youth incarcerated at Cecil Fraser Youth Centre, Cedar Youth Residence and Nor-Kap who were due for release in the near future.

This project has benefited thousands of Sudbury and area youth, most of whom were living alone in hostels and who were at risk of long-term dependency on the system because they had neither the social, emotional nor educational skills to stay employed. The cancellation of funds for this youth support project puts these young people back at risk.

The board of directors and the staff of the John Howard Society would like Mike Harris to visit them when he is in Sudbury on November 24 to see first hand the work being done. They can't afford to pay $125 to attend the Tory fund-raiser, so they hope he'll visit them at Passi House. The executive director, Mr John Rimore, is in the members' gallery today, and we invite the Premier to come and we hope that he will.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I have here some of the latest statistics out of Brantford on the welfare caseloads. Needless to say, I have some very good news to report to the Legislature today.

On June 8, when the people of Ontario decided to elect a new and vibrant government with some fresh ideas, we were sitting at 2,607 welfare caseloads in my community. Since then, in five short months, that has dropped to 2,133, nearly 500 caseloads fewer at a time when caseloads have generally risen as the result of the end of seasonal employment.

I can see the Honourable Mr Rae over there shaking his head. I'd just like to tell him that in 1990 there were 1,200 --

Mr Bob Rae (York South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to assure the honourable member, since it's going to be in Hansard, that my head was not shaking, and if it was he would have been able to hear it.

Mr Ron Johnson: I'm going to tell him these numbers anyway. In 1990, there were 1,200 on welfare in our community. That has since risen, under his government, to over 3,500. I can tell you that they sit over there and they lecture us on welfare reform, but really the only thing they knew how to do was increase the size of a welfare cheque and put more people on the dole.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): It should come as no surprise to any observer of Ontario politics that the Harris government commitment to restructuring hospitals and health care facilities is going to hurt many people in this province. But frankly, when the government priorities begin to seriously affect the most vulnerable people in society -- I'm speaking of children -- then maybe it is time for the government to rethink its priorities.

Last week, I received a letter from Dr Ogilvie, a doctor who specializes in paediatric care. Dr Ogilvie expressed concern over the impact the planned Tory closure of hospitals will have on the delivery of health care services within the province, especially the impact the cuts will have on children's paediatric inpatient care. Dr Ogilvie notes that there has been a shift for more demand with respect to health care services for paediatric patients.

In view of the changes taking place at the Hospital for Sick Children, this has resulted in a shift of numerous paediatric ear, nose and throat care cases being transferred to peripheral hospitals such as North York Branson Hospital. As you know, Branson is on the Tory hit list.

The problem is serious. The shift in children's inpatient treatment to hospitals like Branson will be seriously undermined if and when the government finalizes its restructuring plans. It is therefore becoming --

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

CHILD CARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm happy to see the Minister of Community and Social Services here, back from Las Vegas. He's got a damn peculiar idea about what it means to support the Ontario economy.

But he's got a lot of answering to do to folks down in Welland-Thorold and throughout the province who are running scared now, real scared, about what this government's cuts are going to do to public day care across the province of Ontario, and certainly the fear that's being expressed pretty consistently and far and wide by parents whose children are being taken care of on a daily basis at the regional day care centre in Welland: people like Lynda Welsh, who's got her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Mandy at the regional day care, who's currently full-time at school in the adult learning centre, taking accounting and other programs that are going to enable her to have some modest competitiveness in the workforce if only there were jobs there -- it's simply going to be impossible for her to follow through with that training if this government, by its mean-spirited and stingy and nasty attitude towards day care, takes away that spot for her child -- people like Pattie Jamieson, again of Welland, who's working out of town for $7.65 an hour, who wants to be able to keep on doing it but needs regional day care services subsidized, if you will, if she's going to keep that employment and maintain the level of dignity that she's worked hard to achieve; people like Kimberly Wilson, with a four-year-old child at the regional Welland child care centre, real concerned about the prospect of cuts.

Maybe Mr Tsubouchi had better leave the slot machines for a few minutes and pay attention to what these people are talking about.

CHILD DAY

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): Today Canadians are celebrating national Child Day. This is a day for all Canadians to reflect upon the importance of children and how we can ensure they receive the best of care.

I have recently been charged with the responsibility of reviewing Ontario's child care program and recommending a reform strategy to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Through this process I will be consulting with stakeholders throughout the province. My goal is to bring forward options for child care that parents and taxpayers can afford. In our dialogue the table will be open to options that use our resources as effectively as possible, ensure parental choice, encourage quality and balance the need for public and private modes of delivery.

Contrary to the speculation encouraged by the opposition, no child care policy decisions have been made. This government is concerned that some child care providers wish to make their concerns known by disrupting or closing child care centres this week. This scheme will deprive parents and children of care. Parents have a right to expect operators to act responsibly and ensure that services are provided, and the ministry expects that all requirements of the Day Nurseries Act will be met so that the health and safety of children are not jeopardized.

On national Child Day I would like to emphasize our government's commitment to protecting our children's future by encouraging growth and prosperity by getting --

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Ontario residents have repeatedly called for tougher sanctions against young offenders who show a flagrant disregard for the law. In keeping with the promise we made to the electorate last spring, this government is committed to delivering a program that would expose young offenders to the concepts of discipline and personal responsibility.

Today, as a first step towards implementing a clearer and more meaningful response to youth crime in Ontario, I am announcing the establishment of a task force of community leaders and members of provincial Parliament to develop a strict discipline program for Ontario young offenders.

Strict discipline programming for young offenders has recently been introduced in Manitoba and Alberta. Programs typically emphasize fundamental values such as personal accountability and self-respect in a highly structured atmosphere of rigorous physical discipline.

The task force will establish standards for security, work and basic skills training to maximize self-worth and rehabilitation of young offenders. Over the next four months, task force members will review Canadian and international models for strict discipline facilities, consult with stakeholders, and make recommendations on how a program of strict discipline should be tailored for the effective custody, management and treatment of young offenders in Ontario. New programming recommended by the task force will be implemented within current ministry budget allocations.

The task force will be co-chaired by my parliamentary assistant, Gary Carr, MPP for Oakville South, and Janet Ecker, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services and MPP for Durham West.

Citizen members of the task force, who are present today in the Speaker's gallery and who will, I want to point out and emphasize, be volunteering their time, include Norman Inkster, former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a past president of Interpol; Archie Ferguson, former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police; the Honourable John M.

Seneshen of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division); Norman Peel, QC a London, Ontario, criminal lawyer; Franco Fragomeni, supervisor of psychological services at the Belleville General Hospital; and Gary Allan, former special programs coordinator at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, thank you, gentlemen.

The task force is to complete its recommendations by April 15, 1996.

This government is alarmed by Statistics Canada reports that the number of youths under the age of 18 who were charged with violent crime is increasing at a significant rate. The rising trend towards criminal involvement by young people must be addressed to prevent future crime and the unacceptable waste of human potential.

This is the first of a number of initiatives this government will be announcing to strengthen Ontario's justice system.

ONTARIO FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMISSION

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I rise today to table the final report of the Ontario Financial Review Commission, entitled Beyond the Numbers: A New Financial Management and Accountability Framework for Ontario.

Since being named Minister of Finance, I have taken a number of steps aimed at restoring credibility and public confidence in Ontario's finances. One of these first steps was to establish the Ontario Financial Review Commission last July 27. The eight commissioners, six from the accounting profession and two from the broader business community, were asked to advise on ways of improving Ontario's financial management, making financial reporting easier to understand and strengthening accountability. The commission, as part of that mandate, was also asked to examine the financial reporting and activities of certain crown agencies.

In the ensuing three months the commissioners have applied themselves diligently to their tasks, meeting with dozens of people from within and outside government, reviewing written submissions from members of the public and applying to their deliberations their experience and skill in financial management and reporting. Their report and recommendations, which I have just received, appear to be extremely comprehensive and detailed. I look forward to reviewing and responding to them.

Finally, I would like to thank the commission chair, Bill Broadhurst, past chairman of Price Waterhouse, and the vice-chair, Helen Sinclair, president of the Canadian Bankers Association, who are with us today in the members' gallery. My thanks extend also to commissioners Sonja Bata, of Bata Ltd; Hugh Bolton, of Coopers and Lybrand; Martin Calpin, of Deloitte and Touche; Cecil Fleming, of BDO Dunwoody; David Knight, of KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne; as well as Robert Lord of Ernst and Young.

The members of the Ontario Financial Review Commission, all of whom willingly volunteered their service, provide an exemplary model of the way dedicated private citizens across the province are working for the good of all Ontarians.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): First of all, I would like to say to the House that I believe this minister really has total disregard for this Legislature, where less than five minutes ago I received a copy of his statement to this House and yet he was in the media studio for the last half-hour giving a press conference about this statement. Mr Speaker, I'd ask that you would look into that so that he would be serving this House rather than the media.

I also would like to say that it's probably good that he's going to have a little study before he jumps into this, because I would refer the minister to all the literature that has been developed over the last five or six years in regard to boot camps -- and that's what we're talking about here -- in the United States. All that literature shows that recidivism rates are the very same for kids, young offenders, coming out of boot camps as they are for any other sort of institution.

This is very dramatic, very political action, but as a lot of the experiments in either a criminal justice or an education system there's more drama in the ideas than there are in the results. I would ask, before we get into a lot of expense with his blue ribbon committee, that the minister go look at that literature.

Several of the studies -- and I think the latest one has come out of an eight-state study in the United States. This has been authored by Doris Layton MacKenzie. They studied boot camps out of eight of the states that have had the most history since 1988 in this, and the conclusions to the study I'd like to read into the record:

"We do not know yet how to organize boot camps with reasonable confidence that they will achieve their intended results. The...assessment does suggest how not to organize boot camps. The only effects on recidivism that were found were in programs that included a strong rehabilitative component in the daily

schedule of activities (three or more hours) and in programs that provided intensive supervision to participants after release. Programs designed only to provide physical training, hard labour and military discipline did not reduce recidivism and may have a negative effect."

I would like to emphasize this for the minister, that we need to continue with the programming side and that maybe some strict discipline programming for 10% to 15% of our young offenders could be very effective, but it's not the panacea for all of the young offender problems we have here in Ontario.

ONTARIO FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMISSION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to add my thanks to the distinguished group that did this report. We are very fortunate to have as much talent that's prepared to give their time, and I want to add my thanks to the minister's thanks.

I would say that, for our party, this is an extremely important report because, as the Provincial Auditor as recently as about a week ago pointed out in his report, the deficits in the last two years have been understated by, the auditor says, roughly $3.5 billion. What that means is that as the finances of the province have been reported in the budget, they have not reflected accurately the true state of the finances, so we welcome this report. I just received it literally minutes ago, but some of the recommendations that I've seen so far we're very supportive of.

I might add our disappointment with the government. We've said this in the Legislature before, but for the first time in the history of the province we will not have a budget. It is the budget document that we use, and the auditor says we should use, as the major fiscal statement of the government, but for the first time in the history of the province we won't have that. I see the group makes a strong recommendation about the necessity of a comprehensive budget. So I wanted to add our disappointment with that.

I wanted to add our disappointment with the fact that the only documents we are dealing with right now are what are called estimates. They're not even the new government's estimates. They're the estimates of the previous government. So not only have we not got a budget, but the estimates that the Harris government is asking the Legislature to deal with aren't even their own estimates. They're estimates that were prepared by the previous government. I can accept that the new government's been busy, but surely there's nothing as fundamental as laying out for the public and indeed the Legislature the details of their spending plan.

I look forward to going over this report in more detail. I think it will be a very helpful blueprint for ensuring that the new government reports its finances in a way that the public, the opposition and indeed the financial community can have some confidence that the numbers we see in the budget are in fact the numbers.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Mr Speaker, I'd like to respond as did my colleague from Timiskaming to the statement of the Solicitor General and to say to you that I too am deeply concerned that in fact the critics were not given an opportunity to respond to this statement and indeed did not receive it until after the press had been briefed. I think that's a serious omission, and I hope the government will not continue with that.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Something he used to complain about.

Mrs Boyd: This minister used to complain very bitterly about that when any other government did it, and it is very important for him to be respectful of this place.

I want to say to the minister that the notion of having a committee to look at different ways of improving the response that the corrections area has for young offenders is something that will be very popular with people in Ontario. We know that.

The problem is that he has established a task force with one focus, and I would urge the minister to look very clearly at who are young offenders who show a "flagrant" disrespect for the law. To whom do these concepts of strict discipline really apply? Are they first offenders, or do we need to find a much more effective way of dealing with first offenders at the onset of their kind of criminal activity and make sure that they do not learn how to be more and more violent criminals as time goes on?

We have very good programs and alternative measures that are in place in places like London and Sudbury, run by people who understand youth crime, and I would urge the minister to ensure that there is a continuum of looking at this issue from the least serious offences to the most serious offences.

The member says that the number of violent youth crimes has more than doubled between 1986 and 1991, and that is true. What the minister does not say is that for the last three years there's been a consistent decline in the number of violent crimes committed by young offenders, even though changes in the Young Offenders Act which have been made and are pending on the part of the federal government have not yet taken place.

It's important for us to get that into perspective, particularly in Ontario, where charging mechanisms changed with respect to our zero violence in the schools program, and indeed a much more serious look at the school level at the use of violence by young people. So I would urge the minister to be very, very mindful of using statistics that are current and are real, not trying to use the scare tactics that youth crime is out of control, because in fact none of the statistics show that that is true.

Last, I'd like to say something about the task force itself. The members of the task force are all deeply respected, contributing citizens of the province of Ontario. However, having said that, none of them has any particular expertise or knowledge around youth issues -- none of them. Even the Honourable John Seneshen, a judge of the provincial court from my own jurisdiction, has not been a youth court judge, has not been doing that kind of work, and it is extremely important that the minister be aware that the expertise that my colleague from Timiskaming talked about in the area of youth justice, what works with young people, could be much broader.

I would urge the minister to be sure that, when this matter is being looked at, the expertise of people like Dr Alan Leschied, from the Family Court Clinic in London, and many of those who have worked around the province with the John Howard Society, with the St Leonard's Society, doing work with youthful offenders -- that he would take into account the kind of work they have done.

I am surprised that we could not find any experts, any community experts, for this committee who were women, and I would say to the minister that it is important to have a dual perspective, because young offenders are not just boys. Young women are also in this kind of situation, and many of those who have worked hardest in our communities on young offender issues are in fact women, whose expertise is just as great as the honourable gentlemen whom he has appointed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Last week my colleague the member for Oriole asked your Minister of Health and your Minister of Finance if they would reaffirm a campaign commitment that you made, a very clear commitment that you would not cut health care, and we asked them to reaffirm that commitment by signing a pledge.

Both of those ministers refused to sign a pledge, and yet I remember, Premier, during the campaign you were prepared to sign a pledge to underline your commitment. In that case it was a taxpayers' pledge, and you signed that pledge in order to underline your commitment on taxation.

Today I ask you if you will underline your commitment on health care by signing a health care protection pledge. Premier, I have the pledge here, as we had it last week, asking your ministers to sign it. It's a simple pledge. It merely restates the commitment that you made, the commitment I'm sure you will remember.

It says, "I hereby pledge that there will be no further cuts to the health care budget in the November 1995 fiscal statement, and furthermore, I guarantee that the Harris government will not make additional cuts to health care as a result of revenue shortfalls."

I will ask a page to deliver it to the Premier and I just ask the Premier if he will sign this and reaffirm his commitment to the people of Ontario.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I will live up to and honour the commitments I made in the campaign. If you've got specific questions, I'll refer them to the Minister of Health.

Mrs McLeod: We've been asking the Minister of Health repeated questions. We asked the Minister of Health to sign this pledge; the Minister of Health refused. Since it was the Premier's commitment, I felt it was appropriate to ask the Premier if he would reaffirm his commitment to the people of Ontario.

It seems rather strange to me that no one in the government, including the Premier, is willing to sign a pledge which does nothing more than reaffirm one of the foundations of their election platform, one of their most sacred commitments, according to this Premier, to the people of Ontario.

The campaign document said it very plainly and very simply, "We will not cut health care spending." We are simply and plainly asking you to reaffirm that commitment. I find your refusal to do so absolutely mystifying. I take it that this is an indication that you are intending to break your promise in the expenditure statements next week. You've already made cuts in the health care budget. Should we be expecting even more cuts next week?

Hon Mr Harris: We made it very clear in the campaign, and this is typical of why we're in the mess we're in. The member, you know, when they were in government -- and now they're saying: "Don't spend here and don't do there. Spend more efficiently here but don't do this. Balance the budget but don't reduce any expenditures. Don't do this; don't do that."

We committed, and let me tell you what we committed to. You can't take one part without the other. We committed to seal the health care envelope. We will go to the people four years from now with the health care envelope spending at the same $17.4 billion that we said we would go there with. But we also committed, and we committed extensively, and day after day, to find savings in the health care system, to spend more smartly, to spend more wisely, to meet the funding pressure of an aging population, new technology, new funding that was there.

The minister, week after week after week, and will in this upcoming statement and will in the 1996 budget -- and we will talk about brand-new spending, new programs in health care. The difference between the way this government operates and the two former governments for the last 10 years: We said clearly we're going to find savings in the health care system to pay for the new funding pressures and the new programs we announced so that they're in balance. That's what you didn't do.

Mrs McLeod: That seemed like a very strange and rather inappropriate rant, given the nature of the question. The question was not about where you're going to save money in the health care budget and how you're going to reallocate; the question was about a commitment not to cut health care. Your campaign commitment was very clear, very plain, very simple: You promised you would not cut health care, full stop, period. That was the commitment. Within a month of taking office, we saw that you had already broken that commitment.

You cut $127 million in your first financial statement and now we see that you're looking for some weasel kinds of ways of getting around your commitment that there would be no new user fees in health care. It is absolutely clear to everybody that you have no intention of keeping your commitment not to cut health care. Premier, why don't you just come clean and tell us what cuts in health care we can expect to see in that expenditure statement next week?

Hon Mr Harris: What you are asking me to do is to not fund new dialysis, not fund new cancer treatment, not fund new programs for immunization, not fund paramedics, not fund, for rural Ontario, emergency services for hospitals. You're asking me to do that.

You campaigned on stable funding. Did you have a definition of it? I put on the record the definition $17.4 billion, and I was very clear that I would find savings in the system, that we would spend more efficiently. Now you want me to sign something that says we'll never spend another nickel on any new program in health care because we said to do it we have to find the savings.

The irresponsible $100-billion debt, the $10-billion deficit, are a result of you saying yes to every interest group that came along, signing anything anybody put in front of you, and not being fiscally accountable. For me to sign what you're asking me to sign is to say no to new dialysis, no to new techniques, no to cancer treatment, no to all those services that the minister is announcing week after week. We're not saying no to the people of Ontario when it comes to health care.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mrs McLeod: But in the campaign document, the words were so simple. I was simply repeating it. Apparently the Premier is not prepared to repeat those very simple and very clear words.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will move on to a second question, and that is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister, you will be, I'm sure, aware that there are representatives from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses in the gallery today and that they're here following the release of an annual report they've made on the progress -- or it might be more appropriate, having read their report, to talk about it as being a full-scale retreat -- made by your government towards eliminating the violence against women and children in this province.

Last month in this Legislature, in response to repeated questions, you made a commitment to protect core services for women and children in abusive situations. At the beginning of this month, which is, as you will know, Wife Assault Prevention Month, the minister for women's issues made a similar commitment. But as the women in the gallery have made clear today, programs that have been established to protect women and children from abusive situations are being slashed by your government and your ministry.

My question is very simple: What happened to your commitment? Why are you cutting programs that assist abused women and children and protect them from further violence?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, I'd like to state that I'm meeting on Thursday with this particular group to discuss some of their issues. Secondly, I'd like to say again that we do continue to provide over $60 million in funding to women's shelters.

Mrs McLeod: I fail to see how meeting with the group on Thursday helps to rectify the problems he's created with the cuts that have already been made. This minister keeps talking about "core services"; again today he says they've protected funding for core services.

Yet the people who are here today, who run the emergency shelters, the people you say you're finally going to meet with on Thursday, define core services they offer as being things like a 24-hour crisis phone line, emergency transportation to shelters, crisis counselling for women, counselling for children who witness violence in their homes, and funds to pay for the shelter administration. All these core services at emergency shelters across this province have suffered cuts from your government.

I have to ask you, as you talk about protecting core services, exactly what is your definition of "core services"? Do you not agree that a crisis counselling program for women or counselling programs for children who have been in abusive situations at home or emergency transportation to a shelter are core services? Will you tell us how you define the core services that you say you're prepared to protect?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: When we're talking about core services, they're exactly that. They're services that are considered very important to the people of Ontario.

We have to put this in perspective. I mean, here we go again. There's no recognition whatsoever of the fact that we are in a fiscal crisis at this particular moment, that as a result of the overspending of the last two governments, it's costing us $1 million an hour to pay the interest on the debt alone.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Hamilton East is out of order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What would you like me to do other than the fact that I am trying to meet with this group on Thursday and discuss their issues?

Mrs McLeod: I'll tell the minister that I happen to believe that a commitment to protect core services needed by women and children in abusive situations should be a priority for his government and for his ministry, and that it is completely hypocritical for this minister, day after day, to stand up in the House and say they are protecting core services when they in fact have cut the funding for emergency shelters, when they have totally eliminated the funding for the second-stage housing programs that provide the support that women and families need to establish independent lives.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): We have not eliminated funding to second-stage, Lyn.

Mrs McLeod: The minister for women's issues interjects to say, as she has said consistently, that they're not cutting core services for second-stage housing. There is nothing left except bricks and mortar. There are no support services to help those women and children establish independent lives, because the services are being shut down on December 31.

Minister, I think you should come clean and admit that you're cutting core services for emergency shelters, admit that you have indeed completely eliminated the funding for longer-term support services to help women and children establish independent lives, come clean and admit that you indeed have violated your commitment to protect programs for women and children who are in abusive situations.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Number one, it is a priority of our government. And talk about coming clean: The Leader of the Opposition is saying we've eliminated all funding for second-stage women's shelters, and no we haven't; they're still being funded for the residential component. Also, we still fund $60 million towards these programs and, in addition to that, another $15 million in counselling programs for women in need.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Bob Rae (York South): A question to the Premier: I've had a chance to ask this question to your colleague the Deputy Premier as well as to the minister responsible for women's issues, but since we're together in the House today, I'd like to ask you this question.

I have in my hand an affidavit sworn in London on November 16, 1995, signed by Julie Lee, who swears that she attended a meeting with the minister responsible for women's issues at which time, according to her own notes, the minister said, "Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with the government, providing an oppositional voice [at this point she made reference to Harmony House, an Ottawa second-stage housing project which has been strongly voicing opposition to the cuts] will be audited and their funding eliminated."

I'd like to ask the Premier, given the fact that this has now reached the point where the person at the meeting feels she has to sign a sworn affidavit indicating that this indeed is directly what she heard, would the Premier not agree with me that this issue, which has been with us now for a couple of weeks, should be referred to a committee of the House so that members of the House will have an opportunity to hear both from members of the community as well as from the minister with respect to this meeting?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think where it should be referred is to the minister.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think it's very simple. There was a meeting. I've stated in this House before that I encourage people to come forward and speak up for what they believe in. Those words don't match the practice in my political career, nor are they believable, and I didn't say it.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Supplementary? New question.

Mr Rae: I want to ask the Premier again, and I want to ask him directly. This concerns the conduct of a member of your government. We now have, in addition to the affidavit, letters from several other advocacy and women's centres across the province. I have a petition with 231 names. We have comments from various people who were at the meeting who all concur with what Ms Lee says was said.

We have a fundamental question about the willingness of your government to recognize that when there are very different accounts of a conversation between the people who were there and the minister, this at least raises a very fundamental question with respect to what in fact happened at this meeting. Would the Premier not agree with me that if indeed the minister said these words, they could only interpreted by the people listening to them as a threat?

Hon Mr Harris: I referred the question, Speaker.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I didn't say the words --

The Speaker: Order. This is a new question.

Hon Mr Harris: I will refer the new question as well to the minister.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I will say in this House again that there was a meeting -- all of us have meetings -- and if everybody had to put up with this kind of activity because someone disagreed during the course of some conversation, and they sent letters and they got signatures -- it's my understanding now that this same person has written all the interval and transition houses, many of which I've met with. Some are here in the gallery today. They know I've encouraged them to speak up for what they believe in.

It's very simple. I did not make that statement. I would never make a statement like that. We are actually, as members in this House, all intimidated by the actions of this particular member in the third party.

The Speaker: Does the leader of the third party have a supplementary? No? New question; the member for Oriole.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, it's a very simple question: Have you licensed any new facilities, independent health facilities or clinics, to provide insured health services under the Independent Health Facilities Act?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): To the best of my knowledge, over the past four months since coming to office I've not issued any new IHF licences.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you for that answer, Minister. We often hear of the new vision of you, your government and your Premier that you're proposing for health care and medicare in Ontario. I wonder and I worry, as many are worried, that your vision includes an American-style, two-tier health care delivery system for Ontario: one health care system for the rich and one for the rest of us Ontarians.

Minister, will you stand in your place today and guarantee to the people of Ontario that they will not have to worry about buying their way into receiving medically necessary services, that people will not be forced to pay for those necessary health services that they presently are receiving today from health facilities in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm very proud to say that with the announcement by the government shortly after we came to office respecting out-of-country payments, Ontario today is the only province that has no irritants between ourselves and the federal government with respect to the Canada Health Act; we are the only province fully living up to the Canada Health Act. I'm proud of that and we will continue to do that. Under the Canada Health Act insured services must be provided to insured persons in Ontario without user fees, and we will fully live up to that aspect of the Canada Health Act.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, this morning the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses held a press conference with the theme Unlock the Doors to Freedom. I attended that press conference, and since there was no representative from the Tory caucus, they asked me to give these keys to the government caucus to wear in support of their campaign. I'm sending them over with a page right now and I'd like to ask the Premier if he will wear one himself in support of their campaign and if he will distribute these to his caucus members to wear and support the campaign Unlock the Doors to Freedom.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think members will know that my practice, with the exception perhaps of a poppy every Remembrance Day, has been to respect what I interpret to be the rules of the Legislature to not wear T-shirts or sweaters or buttons or these kinds of things, and I personally have not done that. I have tried to be pretty consistent with that.

I am happy to receive the keys. I will distribute the keys to the members of my caucus, many of whom may wish to wear them and many of whom do wear -- I know that in your caucus some do and some don't, and it's the same in the Liberal Party.

But let me say to the member that whether or not one wears buttons, T-shirts, signs, keys, symbols, in no way diminishes my personal commitment to transition houses, to interval houses, in no way diminishes our government's and our cabinet's commitment to provide services, dollars and help in any possible way we can.

Ms Churley: I think the Premier just told me that he's willing to restore the lost funding to the transition houses and the second-stage housing in Ontario. I'm glad to hear that commitment and I hope he'll reaffirm it in my supplementary.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: I don't want to hear any comments from the minister responsible for women's issues. She has absolutely no credibility in this House any more. Anyway, this question is to the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Direct your question through the Chair, please.

Ms Churley: Yes, Mr Speaker. The members of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses feel that your government has locked the doors to freedom for women who are experiencing abuse. How are you going to make sure those doors are kept open at the same time you are cutting? And you are cutting. You won't admit it, but you are. You're cutting funding from front-line emergency shelter budgets, funding for second-stage shelters, training programs, community counselling, social assistance benefits, pay equity, employment equity, and more. What are you going to say to the women? What are you going to say to assure abused women today that you will guarantee their safety?

Hon Mr Harris: I'll refer the supplementary to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections: You can't do that.

The Speaker: No. New question; the member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On October 25 --

The Speaker: Excuse me. The rule says you can refer a supplementary, which I was not aware of.

Hon Mr Harris: If the rules are, and I believe you're correct and that

interpretation is one I've always had, that you can -- the questioner cannot in fact redirect, but I did refer it and I know the minister would be happy to answer it.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): This is very similar to the question that was asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition, and once again I think it's very important that we have some discussions, and we are going to have discussions with this group on Thursday.

The Speaker: New question; the member for York-Mackenzie.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On October 25 I tabled a petition in this House that was presented to me in my constituency, signed by some 1,650 people, most of whom were senior citizens. Specifically, these people live in Ontario Housing Corp units, and I read the petition as follows:

"Mr Harris has proposed to sell all 84,000 units owned and operated by Ontario Housing Corp to the private sector. This represents the homes of approximately 110,000 people in the province. This will mean a dramatic change in lifestyle for all of us, including seniors who are on fixed incomes. We oppose this action."

Mr Minister, this petition was organized by senior citizens in my riding, many of whom have serious concerns about losing their housing units as a result of government policy. Can the minister provide us with clarification on the government's policy on this issue, and what comfort can he give these seniors that their homes are not at risk?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): This government is committed to getting out of the housing business. We stated that categorically during the campaign and we intend to live up to that commitment. The alternatives of getting out of the housing business are currently under review, as we've said. We know these are the homes of the seniors who were referred to, and everybody else, and we're going to be extremely sensitive to their needs as we develop our alternatives. Nothing is going to happen until we are satisfied that the concerns of the tenants are protected.

One of the options that we're looking at is a shelter allowance. This would allow people to choose where they live rather than having to stay in the bricks and mortar that they are in now.

Mr Klees: My supplementary to the minister is that while the ultimate ownership of these housing units may not have an immediate effect on these people, the fact is that many of them are senior citizens and are on fixed incomes. What assurance can the minister provide that these senior citizens will not be facing rent increases under whoever the new owners are and that they in fact will be protected from rent increases so that they will not be uprooted from their homes?

Hon Mr Leach: As I've indicated, we're examining a wide range of options that are available to us on the future of the OHC. However, as I have repeated many times in this House, we intend to ensure that tenants' rights are protected while we're directing a new program. I can assure the member that in the event of privatization we would offer that same assurance to the tenants of OHC.

INVESTMENT FUNDS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Mr Minister, 10 days ago I asked you a question about the credibility of your government and the ability of businesses to rely on commitments made by you in your efforts to portray Ontario as open for business. Since I asked that question, I have had several other businessmen call me to tell me of their experience with the reneging of commitments by your government.

Now we have Douglas MacKenzie, president of Commercial Alcohols Inc, proposers of an ethanol project in Chatham, Ontario, saying that the project is in doubt because of the withdrawal of committed support by the Ontario government.

My question to the minister is this: Your government and your Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs have consistently given lip-service to financial support for the ethanol industry in Ontario. As a result of those assurances, investments have been made that are now at risk. Is the message that you are trying to convey to investors that Ontario and its government cannot be trusted?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to refer this question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I and this government continue to support the ethanol industry 110% in this province. I'm also happy to announce today that a former deputy minister within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has been given the task of being a fact-finder in order to look into the very real possibility of stimulating the ethanol industry in Ontario, an industry that is requiring more and more product just to service Ontario needs.

Mr Kwinter: The minister has taken what I consider an unusual step of referring a question that has really nothing to do with basically the ethanol issue; it had to do with the idea of trust in this government and about commitments that you have made.

Ten days ago, the minister made an astonishing statement. It says, "Economic growth cannot be created by government assistance." I say to the minister, and I said to his deputy, if that is the case, then what kind of boondoggle are you running over there? Why don't you send everybody home, turn out the lights and save the taxpayers one pile of money?

This question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, not to the Minister of Agriculture. It's a question of trust. There are people who are investing millions of dollars finding out that those investments are going down the tubes because they cannot trust this government. I'm asking you, Minister, I'm asking the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, are you going to be a player or are you going to continue to be a cheerleader and not provide the kind of leadership that this province needs?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Twenty-seven thousand new jobs have been created in the last two months, according to one of the Toronto papers. Now, the original question revolved around the ethanol industry, and I believe the supplementary should come from the response to the initial question.

I want to quote the Leader of the Opposition here when she was Minister of Energy in 1990. It says here, and it's signed by the Honourable Lyn McLeod, "At present it does not appear that ethanol from grain can be produced at a sufficiently low cost to become an important component in Ontario gas without significantly larger subsidies," signed by Lyn McLeod. So draw your own conclusions.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. It is in relation to his statements that he would be saving $350 million of taxpayers' money because of the commitment to end OACs, or grade 13, by the year 2001.

In light of one of the statements made in his now infamous videotape in which he said, referring to the United States Declaration of Independence, that the statement that all people are created equal is a ludicrous statement, "That assertion today wouldn't hold water; in the time that it was written it was absolutely wrong," can the minister clarify his position with regard to the allocation of the funds saved by the ending of OACs at the end of secondary level of education to the beginning of primary education to deal with the inequities he seems so sure exist between people?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Algoma for the question. I think every member in this House certainly is here with a firm commitment to finding inequities and ending them. That's certainly why I'm here and I know that's why the member opposite is here. That's one of the reasons why I'm looking forward to the report of the task force on education financing, so that we can look at how to fund education across this province so every child in this province has a similar opportunity to education.

However, I might point out to the member opposite that if he wants to find out where that premium will be spent when OACs end past the year 2000, he needs to look at the $100-billion debt his government left this province because, my friend, you have already spent that money.

Mr Wildman: I take from the minister's answer that the savings of $350 million to which he referred in the House will not be, in his view, applied to primary education.

Would the minister confirm that only 40% of that $350-million estimate are actually provincial dollars and the rest of it, the 60%, are moneys that have been expended and are being expended by boards of education and separate school boards across the province?

Can he at least commit to apply the 40% of that figure to ensure that young students who are experiencing difficulties can be identified early by having junior kindergarten programs available to them, so they can develop their language skills, their attentiveness and their social skills, since most studies have indicated that those children who have indeed had good early childhood education do not have the same problems later on. They have fewer dropouts and have more academic success, and indeed one study in the United States indicates that for every $1 spent at the primary level, society saves $7 later.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the member opposite that there is one taxpayer in the province of Ontario, and that that one taxpayer is a taxpayer contributing that $350 million.

I'd also remind the member again that that $350 million comes past the year 2000, and this government will not wait until after the year 2000 to find affordability, accountability and quality in the public education system in the province of Ontario.

COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is also for the Minister of Education. Computers are becoming an integral part of our society, both at work and in our homes. What is the minister doing to ensure that students in our school system acquire the necessary skills to compete in an increasingly computerized world?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member for his question. For many years, educators in this province have recognized the importance of teaching computer skills. This government recognizes the importance of computer skills for the young people in this province. That's why we've increased the funding for programs such as GEMS, which puts computers in the classroom here in Ontario. In the near term, I intend to announce some further initiatives that will help Ontario to be at the leading edge of information technology in education in the classroom in Ontario.

Computers are only a part of information technology. Educators in Ontario are moving now from using computers as merely a tool to teach computer skills to using information technology to teach children to distribute knowledge. That's the exciting part of information technology in the province.

Mr Grimmett: The difficulties associated with the financing of educational programs is a topic of considerable discussion in my riding, and I wondered what steps the minister is taking to ensure that the students in all Ontario schools will get a chance to be involved in these computer programs.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Many people, including this government and I'm sure everyone in this chamber today, are concerned with the growing gulf between the educational opportunities for children who have an opportunity to learn with information technology and children who do not. Recently, in the grade 9 test results that were issued in the province, teachers reported that 70% of children in this province rarely or never used computers.

That's why I'd like to assure the honourable member that this government will be moving to work with educators and the private sector to make investments in information technology that will close that educational gulf and give every child in this province the same opportunity.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Attorney General. On a warm August evening in 1994, 16-year-old Shayne Norris was riding his bicycle home in the Ottawa area when he was struck from behind by a car and killed. The car was driven by OPP Constable Serge Loranger, who admitted that he had just left a bar where he had been drinking. He also later admitted that he knew he hit something, but he said he didn't believe it to be a person. He did not stop his car to confirm that it was not a person he'd struck.

A blood sample taken from Constable Loranger showed that his blood alcohol level was still over the limit some three and one half hours after Shayne was struck. The blood sample procedure was not properly followed by the police investigators, and as a result this evidence was found to be inadmissible in court.

Constable Loranger has been acquitted of all charges brought against him. He has even been acquitted of merely failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

Shayne's parents are in the gallery here today, Mr Attorney General, and I understand you met with them earlier today. They need to know from you, our province's Attorney General, if you believe our province's justice system worked in the case of their son. On the one hand, the Norrises have lost their 16-year-old son, and on the other, the man who'd been drinking and driving and whose car struck Shayne has been acquitted of all criminal responsibility. Do you believe that our system of justice worked in the case of Shayne Norris?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): May I say publicly to Mr and Mrs Norris and express to them my profound sympathy for the loss that they've suffered, and repeat that we had a meeting today and we discussed a number of things. Mr and Mrs Norris were very candid with me when they indicated how strongly they felt that the prosecution service of the Ministry of the Attorney General prosecuted this case well and vigorously, and I very much appreciated hearing that from them in very difficult circumstances.

This case was a complicated matter and it was a case that the judge made some very specific findings of fact over, and those findings of fact indicated that there was an issue of doubt as to whether the accused realized that he had been involved in an accident. Whether I agree with that finding or whether I don't agree with that finding is irrelevant. That's a finding that was made by an independent judge on the basis of the evidence that she heard. The ministry reviewed that finding, and it reviewed it over and over and over again, to find a means by which it could possibly appeal this case.

Unfortunately, the finding of fact by the judge is something that is not appealable. The finding was purely a finding of fact. There was no error of law in the way the judge instructed herself to deal with the application of the law to those facts. I can tell you that the administration of justice, as the Norrises know and acknowledge, put every ounce of effort into trying to obtain the result that we all had hoped for and prosecuted this case with integrity and with vigour.

Mr McGuinty: I want to assure you, Mr Attorney General, that the Norrises do not believe that justice has been done in the case of their son. Indeed, over 100,000 people have signed a petition in Ottawa-Carleton on this matter because they too do not believe that justice has been done. My community of Ottawa-Carleton is overwhelmed by a tremendous sense that something went terribly wrong here. On the one hand, we have a young man in the prime of his youth cut down, and on the other hand, the man who admitted to drinking and then driving the car that killed Shayne is found not to be responsible in any way whatsoever for causing Shayne's death.

As you might expect, serious questions are now being raised about the handling of the police investigation. People in Ottawa-Carleton are wondering if there's one standard of law for our police and another for the rest of us. I can tell you that justice has not been seen to be done in the case of Shayne Norris.

I think you would have to admit that this case has brought our system of justice into disrepute, but also I can add that you and the Solicitor General have it within your means to help clear the air here. You can call a public inquiry into the conduct of the investigation in this case, and I believe you must do so immediately. The only way you can restore confidence in our system of justice is through a public inquiry to determine exactly what went wrong here and what must be done to ensure it does not happen again. Mr Attorney General, will you support a public inquiry into the case of young Shayne Norris?

Hon Mr Harnick: It troubles me greatly to hear that there are those who believe that because a police officer was involved in this case, the administration of justice was somehow different than it otherwise would be. I can't comment on issues pertaining to police investigations. What I can comment on is the fact that the prosecution had a case placed before it after certain charges were laid and the administration of justice, through the Ministry of the Attorney General and crown prosecutors, prosecuted that case as best it was possible.

What I can tell members of this House is that there are a number of options open that the Norris family has undertaken, and I hope very much that these options will answer the questions that we so very much want answered. They include procedures under the police complaints legislation that provide for disciplinary hearings and an investigation pursuant to the public complaints investigation under the Police Services Act. I know that the Norris family is proceeding in that regard and I don't want to comment about any of the details in so far as that is concerned.

As well, I understand that there is a civil action that has been started. If there are to be police investigations or investigations as to police conduct, that is not something that is within my purview. What I can say is that the Norris family is following all of the options that are available to them, and I have indicated in my meeting with Mr and Mrs Norris that if they need any guidance in terms of being directed towards those processes or understanding the nature of the process that's available, we would be in a position to provide the advice they would need in terms of following the different options that are available.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'd like to ask the minister if he is aware of a study that was done in Alberta that confirmed that the number of Calgary-area youngsters needing child welfare intervention soared in the past year.

The document confirms that child welfare caseloads jumped 19% in Calgary and the outskirts between November 1994 and June 1995 and, according to the internal caseload analysis, front-line staff attribute the increase to poverty, job loss and the inability of families to pay for basic supports. It also links very clearly the decrease in welfare payments to families in Alberta to an increase in caseloads in the children's aid societies or the child welfare system in Alberta.

Is the minister aware of that study, has his ministry analysed that study, and what will the impact on child welfare cases be in Ontario of your 22% decrease in welfare benefits to children and families?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): First of all, no, I haven't got that study. Perhaps the member could share the study with me. I certainly would be happy to look at it.

Secondly, I had another meeting this morning with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, and we've agreed to have a good dialogue between themselves and myself and the ministry on an ongoing basis in order to assure the people of Ontario that the area of child protection is certainly well taken care of. It has been mandated. The umbrella group has agreed to meet with us on an ongoing basis to assure us that these mandated services will be provided to people of Ontario.

Mr Cooke: It doesn't make anybody in this province feel comfortable or assured that just because the minister finally, after three months, had a meeting with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, somehow it's deemed that cases are going to be dealt with.

The fact of the matter is, in the experience in Alberta, caseloads increased dramatically because families had less financial resources in order to deal with basics like food and a roof over their heads. That will increase the demand on children's aid societies in this province. At the same time, you have cut back already grants to children's aid societies by 5%, and we know that in at least one case, the Halton Children's Aid Society ran out of money at the end of October.

The people of this province want to know what you're going to do to make sure that the children of this province who need the protection of the state are going to get that protection. Or are you going to allow them to be abused and not to be taken care of by this province, as has been the tradition for years?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Specifically with respect to the Halton CAS, this question was asked of me last week in the House, at which time I indicated that the ministry and the Halton CAS are working together to do a review of the administrative and financial situation, and we have provided them with interim funding to ensure that the mandated services of the CAS are provided to people in Halton.

But I'd like to share with you a thought on this particular issue. It came from the Hansard of July 8, 1993, and it's my predecessor, the Honourable Tony Silipo at that time, indicating:

"If there's one thing that just about everyone agrees with, it's that the Ontario welfare system isn't working. It isn't helping unemployed people to learn new skills and find jobs. It isn't helping parents provide for the children's basic needs. By this, I mean not only parents who receive social assistance but also parents who are working full-time in low-wage jobs."

All of a sudden, I think the collective lightbulbs went on over people's heads and they all said, "Eureka," at the same time, and this is the solution Mr Silipo came up with. He said, "Since coming to office in 1990, our government has taken a number of steps to improve the welfare system, including" -- and this is his number one reason -- "increasing benefits by 13.5%."

Obviously, throwing money at the situation is not the answer. If it had been, there'd be nobody on welfare today. We have undertaken a fundamental reform of the welfare system to make sure that people have the opportunity now to be self-sufficient.

NURSING HOME

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, you've been doing a very good job of finding areas of saving within the health care system and reapplying them within the system to better the whole system for every rural Ontarian.

At the present time there's a regulation for nursing homes stating that the administrator there must be on duty 40 hours per week. We have just opened an $18-million nursing home and home for the aged in the county of Renfrew. It is across the street from the Renfrew Victoria Hospital.

Minister, I'm wondering if you would assist us in clearing that regulation in such a way that we could use the same administrator for the hospital and the home for seniors, in that they are adjacent to one another on the same street.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I want to thank my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew for his thoughtful words and for his question. I certainly would like to do everything I can and am actively working to do everything I can to clear the red tape and ensure that one administrator can serve both institutions which are essentially adjacent or very close to each other.

I want to assure the honourable member that we're going to do everything we can. Please, if I could, I commend the member and his constituents for coming up with this idea. Perhaps you'll be a model for other parts of the province. As you take two administrators, and one retires and is not replaced, you're going to save administrative dollars, and you'll be able to use those savings to reinvest in front-line services, and I commend you for that.

Mr Jordan: You're quite correct. The administrator at the new home for seniors is retiring at the end of December, and we can see the saving as being very obvious there.

Can you expedite this so we have a decision before the end of December, when the administrator retires at the Bonnechere Manor?

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to confirm for the member and for the record that the ministry and I are quite serious about resolving this issue as quickly as we can. A recent letter by one of my ministry staff in the residential services branch to the chief administrative officer of the county of Renfrew reads:

"Thank you for meeting with ministry staff on October 17, 1995, to discuss the cost-saving options you are currently exploring with the Renfrew Victoria Hospital. I'm pleased to advise you that the ministry is supportive of pursuing these options in greater detail."

The letter goes on to list a number of questions that the ministry had.

We've seen other examples. For example, Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital and Freeport Hospital went to one administrator when one of those administrators retired. But that was between two hospitals. This is the first time we'll have it between a home for the aged and a hospital. We're going to do everything to clear that red tape and try to meet your time frame. Again, congratulations to you and your constituents for being proactive in finding those savings and suggesting this to the government.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): At this time I'd like to raise a question with the Solicitor General. I gather you will have some passing acquaintance with this case as well, and I want to speak to you about some of the issues that have been raised with respect to the failure on the part of the police conducting the investigation into the Shayne Norris matter to carry out standard operating practice or procedure.

In particular, as I understand it, the police conducting the investigation here did not read Constable Loranger his rights. No breathalyser was taken; no ALERT was taken at the scene. The blood sample that was taken was taken at the three-and-a-half-hour mark when it's required to be taken within the two-hour mark and when Constable Loranger had been in contact with police well within the two-hour mark. Furthermore, Constable Loranger was not charged until one month after the incident.

Given those facts, Solicitor General, I wonder if you might not agree that a public inquiry must be held in the circumstances.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I share the member's concerns related to the way in which this investigation was handled by the police service involved. I will ask my ADM, policing, to provide me very quickly with options available to me as a minister and to us as a government in terms of what can be done to determine precisely what occurred in respect to this particular investigation and the incidents involved in terms of delays in laying charges, the way the samples were handled and all of the very serious and legitimate questions that have been raised in respect of this matter.

I personally am not responsible in respect to public inquiries; that falls under the aegis of the Attorney General. But I do have some personal concerns related to that. I would remind the member that in 1988, I believe it was, perhaps prior to your arrival in this place, the Liberal government initiated a public inquiry in the Niagara region related to a police shooting. That public inquiry dealing with a single incident took five years to arrive at completion and cost the taxpayers of this province $10 million.

I am concerned in respect to handling this in a very expeditious way and a much more time-conscious way, and we can come up with the answers and deal with it in an effective manner. I don't think a public inquiry, at first blush, is perhaps the way to approach it.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A matter of justice.

Mr McGuinty: A fundamental matter of justice, against the death of a young man struck down in the prime of his youth.

I want to impress upon you, Solicitor General, how important an issue this is for Ottawa-Carleton. As I indicated earlier, over 100,000 people have signed a petition connected with this matter. Mr and Mrs Norris are here today. They've met with your colleague. They are not in any way receptive to any passing of the ball back and forth with respect to this issue.

I believe that you recognize how important it is, and I would ask once again that you commit to calling a public inquiry into this matter at the earliest possible opportunity for the sake of the Norrises and indeed for the sake of the administration of justice in this province.

Hon Mr Runciman: At the same time, in responding, I don't believe this is the kind of issue that should be a political football where we get the kind of catcalls that were generated from that side of the assembly.

I indicated at the outset my clear concern and recognition in terms of the questions that have arisen out of this issue. I made a commitment to pursue it and to find out what avenues are available to us and will take action in an appropriate way and in a very timely fashion.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to raise a point under

section 33 of the standing orders, and it's with respect to a question that was asked by my colleague from Riverdale to the Premier. The Premier answered the first question and then referred the supplementary. I do not believe that has happened in the House before. When a minister accepts the first question, the supplementary must then go to that particular minister.

I'd like to specifically refer to 33(d), which says:

"In the discretion of the Speaker, a reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of the minister's reply to an oral question may be asked by any members."

Obviously, the supplementary has to go to the minister, because the supplementary arises out of the answer given by that minister.

I'm sure it was simply an error made by the Speaker, but I wouldn't want that to stand in the House and I'd like clarification.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank the honourable member for raising it. I thought I was right also. However, we will check the record and the standing orders and we will report back to you.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I want to present a petition regarding our present child care crisis. This is to the Legislature.

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important and fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled in a training program or are working single parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers;

"We, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care providers of our Parkdale and High Park communities, urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province and restore funding to their previous levels."

I've attached my signature.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from a number of people from the community of Monteith in my riding which reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has indicated a need to privatize crown assets and programs;

"Whereas the provincial government plans to remove successor rights via Bill 7, therefore enabling widespread privatization;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution did not address the topic of privatization of prisons;

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution did, however, discuss issues related to public safety;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to eliminate any rumours of actual intentions to privatizing the provincial correction facilities and therefore ensuring that the people of this province have their peace of mind in knowing that the government of Ontario is still responsible for the safety and the security of the people in those institutions."

I would affix my name to that petition.

RUNNYMEDE CHRONIC CARE HOSPITAL

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise yet again to present to the Legislative Assembly a petition signed by thousands of constituents in High Park-Swansea, including patients, staff, families of patients and residents, supporting the renovation of Runnymede hospital on its current site.

The petition asks this government to honour the promises broken by the previous Liberal and NDP governments and asks the provincial government to add the promised $18 million to the $10-million community contribution that has already been collected or pledged and give Runnymede Chronic Care Hospital its final approval to begin its rebuilding program.

In addition, this petition calls upon the Minister of Health to carefully review the hospital restructuring report, which has been submitted to the district health council, and to note the serious flaws it contains, particularly in so far as it recommends relocation of long-term and chronic care beds that would leave the southwest quadrant of Toronto significantly underserviced for long-term and chronic care beds in an area that has an aging population already higher than the average for the city of Toronto or Metro.

I submit this petition with hope the Minister of Health will offer public consultation to respond to the final recommendations of the district health council, and I am honoured to affix my name to this petition.

INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a petition to support the government of Ontario's information line and the public inquiry desk at 199 Larch Street in Sudbury. This service has been available to northern Ontarians for 17 years and serves all of northeastern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario's information line and public inquiry desk at 199 Larch Street in Sudbury provides a valuable service to Sudburians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind their decision to cut the funding for this service."

It is signed by 800 people and I have affixed my name to it as well.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated';

"And

whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"And

whereas the minister's credibility and all future actions and statements will be clouded by these discrepancies;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

ST MARY'S SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 constituents of mine from the Cobourg and district area concerned about a secondary school where there are some 26 portables around it.

"We, the undersigned, support the St Mary's community and the Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland, Clarington Roman Catholic separate school board in their efforts to complete this school project by September 1997."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads:

"Whereas the Minister of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I have attached my name to that as well.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): As winter continues to settle in across Ontario, the people are continuing to express their concern over the cuts to winter road maintenance. My petition reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I'm proud to sign my signature to it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council Hospital Restructuring Committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital;

"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 recommendations contained within the 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."

Mr Speaker, I have affixed my signature.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition. Two seniors, George and Helen McLenaghan, drove the riding and collected over 300 names for a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario seniors upon reaching the age of 80 are currently required by legislation to take written and practical examinations by the Ministry of Transportation in order to continue driving;

"Whereas these examinations have placed unnecessary stress and anxiety upon seniors which have resulted in heart attacks and heart failure;

"Whereas medical doctors and family members are fully able to assess the driving abilities of seniors above the age of 80 relative to highways at or below the 400-level series roads;

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

"That the Ontario government permit senior citizens who have reached the age of 80 to continue driving on roads not in excess of the 400 series provided they have obtained the approval from either their family members or their physician."

I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern road maintenance and services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure safe passage of drivers."

I will affix my signature to this.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a number of petitions here signed by members from my riding from Cochrane, Moosonee, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and the theme of the petition is that we are very upset about the direction in which Ontario has been heading since the most recent provincial election. In particular, right now the Conservative government's plans to make junior kindergarten optional for schools really has them worried. They think it's about time the opposition members let their voices be heard on the subject.

I believe from my experience and from the reading that junior kindergarten is essential if we are really to give everyone in our society a chance to succeed. It doesn't take a genius to see that some children are coming to school totally unprepared to take advantage of what is being offered in the classroom. They have no idea how to behave in groups, don't know their colours or their ABCs and are already far behind their classmates. The older these children are when they are first exposed to the basics of schooling, the harder it is to narrow the gap between their ability to learn and that of more fortunate students.

I have affixed my name to the petition.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

"We, the undersigned, are writing to you to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed College of Teachers which the government is intending to legislate. As some of the 130,000 members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation we feel that the College of Teachers is the creation of another level of bureaucracy, the last thing that teachers of the province need.

"The government could be spending its time more productively on the real issues of education such as providing funding for junior kindergarten, a thorough investigation of the amalgamation of school boards and better vocational and technical programs for secondary school students.

"The proposed College of Teachers does not provide a fair representation of teachers and its governing council. The proposed College of Teachers does not provide a fair representation of francophone teachers on its governing council.

"The teachers of Ontario have never asked for a College of Teachers. OTF with certain enhancements could fulfil the powers and function of a proposed College of Teachers. The proposed College of Teachers would impose an annual fee on teachers as well as certain user fees. Most teachers already follow professional development programs and do not need additional bureaucracy to mandate such programs. We ask you to make the government aware of this and state our opposition to this proposal."

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition similar to my friend's the member for Lanark-Renfrew. It reads:

"Whereas Ontario seniors, upon reaching the age of 80, are currently required by legislation to take written and practical examinations by the Ministry of Transportation in order to continue driving; and

"Whereas these examinations have placed unnecessary stress and anxiety upon seniors which have resulted in heart attacks and heart failure; and

"Whereas medical doctors and family members are fully able to assess the driving abilities of seniors above the age of 80 relative to highways at or below the 400-level series roads;

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

"That the Ontario government permit senior citizens who have reached the age of 80 to continue driving on roads not in excess of the 400 series provided that they have obtained the approval from either their family members or their physician."

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): This is from the citizens of Oakwood:

"We, the undersigned, are against the proposed amalgamation of our Board of Education for the City of York with the Toronto Board of Education and the East York Board of Education.

"We, the undersigned, do not want to be part of a proposed new board of education with a student population of over 110,000. Amalgamation would not realize the expected cost savings. The actual process of amalgamation would be lengthy and costly. It would also decrease the responsiveness of the board to their students, parents and community.

"We do not want to pay higher taxes to run a large board. We do not expect to receive more provincial funding from a government who is cutting back on all expenses. We want to keep our special programs. We want to keep providing our seniors with courses in the schools at no cost. We want to keep our before- and after-school programs. We, the citizens of York, want to say no to amalgamation."

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have another one, from the Dufferin-Peel secondary unit:

"As elected representatives of 1,500 teachers, we wish to express our opposition to such a tabling. The teachers are unilaterally opposed to such legislation in that it obstructs the whole concept of self-government and the basic Canadian tenet of democracy.

"Accompanying this letter are numerous responses from constituents who are also members of our organizations and are in fact supportive of the executive's views.

"We therefore urge you to oppose the proposed College of Teachers."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LE SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 22,

An Act to provide for an Oath of Allegiance for the Members of the Legislative Assembly / Projet de loi 22, Loi prévoyant le serment d'allégeance pour les députés à l'Assemblée législative.

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

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm certainly pleased to introduce the bill. I urge the House to support this. It is a bill that will enhance, I believe, our concept of national unity. It is a bill that will allow us the opportunity not only to pay tribute and to continue to understand and respect our heritage in regard to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but add to Canadian unity by also swearing allegiance to our country, as is customary in most countries throughout the world.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Eves moved government notice of motion number 4:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing December 1, 1995, and ending April 30, 1996. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Mr Eves, for up to an hour and a half maximum.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I won't be anywhere close to an hour and a half, you'll be pleased to know, and I'm sure members opposite will be pleased to know that as well. My remarks are going to be extremely brief. I just want to outline the circumstances, so there is no misunderstanding, as to the situation in which the government finds itself and why this motion is necessary here today.

Normally, what would happen is a supply bill would be passed, but as members opposite will certainly know, a supply bill can't be passed until the estimates of the ministries, as put before the Legislature in the estimates committee and concurrences, are agreed to.

Of course, an election having happened on June 8 of this year and the new government not having taken over until June 26 of this year, the estimates, which of course were introduced, like the circumstance that the Liberal Party found itself in in 1990 -- almost identical circumstances -- what happens is that the estimates of the previous government are initially tabled and put forward. That is exactly what we did, and then supplementary estimates are put forward, and that is again exactly what we did, to account for the difference between the previous government's estimates and the expenditure levels that we plan on having as a government during this fiscal year.

But still, according to the standing orders of the House, last week, I believe last Thursday, was the day in which estimates would have been deemed to have been passed. We had just reached an agreement among the House leaders Thursday morning to send them out to committee.

We have agreed to give the estimates committee -- a rather unusual circumstance, but then again much similar to what happened in 1990 -- the time they need during the winter break to go through all of the estimates, as outlined in the standing orders, and to go through the concurrences for six hours as they're deemed in the standing orders, or outlined in the standing orders would be more appropriate wording, I would suggest.

So we're doing all of that, but we can't pass the supply bill until all of that is done, and that won't be done until after the Legislature resumes in the spring. Therefore, the government finds itself in a position, of course, where it needs funding, moneys to operate. Most members are aware that the motion for interim supply provides government with the authority to make payments to hospitals, physicians, school boards, municipalities, suppliers, civil servants and many others. These payments, currently, are being made under the authority of a special warrant, which was issued on July 1 of this year.

Members will also know that special warrants can only be issued when the Legislature is not in session. So that avenue is not open to the government either, in terms of funding.

Motion for interim supply is required now because this warrant only covers payments up to November 30, 1995, and as I indicated, the supplementary estimates tabled with this House earlier this month cannot come into effect on December 1 without the passing of an interim supply motion.

To ensure that all payments scheduled on or after December 1 are made on time in all parts of the province, and particularly I refer to more remote areas of the province such as northern Ontario, it is necessary to provide the banking system with some lead time. The practice has been to give at least five working days to ensure that all payments are received on time. Scheduled payments earlier in December include, among others, payments for general welfare, transfers to hospitals, school boards and children's aid societies.

To ensure that the province meets its obligations in an orderly fashion, I hope that members on all sides of the House will be supportive in ensuring that this motion is passed in a prompt and expedient fashion so that these things can indeed be taken care of.

I would like to also point out that it has been the practice in this Legislature that normally interim supply is a subject matter which, most of the time, receives about one day's debate. As a matter of fact, the last interim supply motion of the previous government, the government that immediately preceded us, in December 1994 lasted all of about 15 minutes. So that is the length of time -- I want to put things into proper context, not to say that there has never been one that has gone on for more than a day, because I'm sure that members opposite will remind me that on occasion there has been, but that isn't the norm. The norm is approximately one day for interim supply.

I did want to outline the circumstances behind which the government finds the reason for moving this interim supply motion, and I will be interested in hearing what members of the opposition and indeed members of the government have to say on this motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions or comments? No? The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on a supply motion. One of the advantages to members of the Legislative Assembly is that supply allows members to discuss a very wide range of topics, because what the Minister of Finance is asking for is permission to pay various bills the government has. In that context, I always enjoy the opportunity to speak on a variety of subjects without being called to order for straying from what one might think would be the only topic one could discuss.

Hon Mr Eves: Are you giving a hint to the Speaker?

Mr Bradley: I do want to assure him that I don't expect the Minister of Finance will have the time to sit through the entire address this afternoon, because I do intend to cover a number of topics. I know he will be back in his office watching on his television monitor to hear what is being said or will read the Hansard in detail tomorrow, but I do want to discuss a number of matters that relate to general government policy and some that are a little bit specific to my riding although they have ramifications across the province.

What is interesting is that the government has to now borrow money to be able to carry out its responsibilities. That's because the government is at the present time carrying a deficit and anticipates that there will be a deficit for a few years to come. One thing where I think there's a consensus in the province is that there must be control of expenditures, that there must be a very careful examination of each of the ministries and each of the programs and each of the projects, and then the government will establish what it considers to be its priorities.

This is indeed important. If you think of it, even the previous government, under which the debt in the province increased by about $50 billion, was making an effort, in its latter days, to reduce its expenditures in very difficult economic times.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We sure got some help from you guys; we got a head start. Tell us about your "balanced" budget.

Mr Bradley: It is always easier to balance budgets in good economic times, more difficult in challenging economic times.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who is interjecting, would know that the only time that we had a budgetary surplus in Ontario since 1971, and the majority of those years would be under Conservative governments, was the 1989-90 fiscal year, and deficits during the period of time of not necessarily the previous government but the government before that were confined to capital expenditures and that the operating expenditures were balanced.

When I look back to 1971, when Premier Davis assumed office, I know he probably wanted to balance his budget in each of his 13 years as Premier, but he did not do so in any one of those years. In fact, on a per capita basis the deficit was significantly higher in 1982, for instance, than it was in the governments subsequent to it.

I don't want to dwell too much on the past, but I hear this mythology purveyed in this House, because there's a script for all of the ministers, including the Premier, that they must talk about previous years and how the previous years were not necessarily good for Ontario. In fact, the greatest period of economic growth in the province of Ontario occurred between 1985 and 1990. We had an unprecedented number of jobs being created across the province during that time.

Mr Pouliot: Thirty-three tax increases.

Mr Bradley: Everybody I spoke to at that time was relatively pleased with the state of the economy. Yes, there were some tax increases, as there were under the Conservative government, but the feeling was that if programs were to be established or expanded, if new services were to be provided at the request of people, if new needs were to be met, it should be on a pay-as-you-go basis. The other basis would have been to allow the deficit to balloon to unprecedented levels, and that was not the choice of the government.

I well recall, as well, sitting in this Legislature listening to Conservative member after Conservative member -- the member for Lake Nipigon will remember this, as will the member for Nickel Belt, who is here now, and the member for Oriole. Virtually all the questions that came to the previous government of which I was a part were asking the government to spend more money.

Day after day after day there would be questions: Why aren't you expanding this program? Why aren't you initiating this project? Why don't you provide more funding for this good cause or that good cause? I listened very carefully to those representations, and sometimes I thought they made a rather good case and so acquiesced to Conservative suggestions that there should be some increases in various areas, but knowing that they would have to be paid for with some tax increases.

As Minister of the Environment, I knew that member after member, within his or her own constituency, had requested more money. The members of Toronto city council, Metro council, were consistently asking for more money from the provincial government because they did not want to raise their municipal taxes. But time after time I had to do it.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Not even once -- never asked for any money.

Mr Bradley: The member now for a west Toronto riding, High Park-Swansea I believe it is, was a member of a council that asked for money from the provincial government and was concerned about the level of expenditure the provincial government would provide to the municipalities. In fact, if there was not an 8% increase for hospitals or municipalities or school boards or other transfer agencies, there was great consternation out there.

We tried to meet some of the pent-up needs there were. There were some programs established, and now each new government has to look at those. The NDP government, never known in opposition for wanting the government to decrease expenditures, had in fact under the previous Treasurer undertaken some significant cuts. I'm sure the Treasurer of this province did not want to cut some of those programs and projects which were so beneficial to so many communities, and I know that even he was confronted by some members of the Conservative Party even during his time of office who requested that the government spend more money in a specific area.

The previous government -- I'm always fairminded in this House and like to give some credit -- was making some significant cuts that did not bring a smile to the face of the Treasurer or of others within the government, but they made those cuts. I, for instance, like to share that information with the labour council when they ask questions about what this government is doing and explain to them that even the NDP had to cut and I know they didn't want to.

I know the labour council was a little more diplomatic in its criticism of the government, although I saw in the paper that Bob Rae is still not welcome at the OFL convention. I would hope they would invite him next time around when they find out that he was simply trying to do a job on behalf of the people of the province. But the previous Treasurer -- who will speak next, I believe, for the NDP -- will talk about those years with a little more respect than I might be able to conjure up.

I think everybody recognizes, at every level of government, that we must look carefully at all the expenditures. The balance is that you have to be careful when you're cutting that you don't initiate a provincially initiated recession, because if you take a lot of money out of the system all at once in huge chunks, there is the danger that you could have a very, very dampening effect on the economy. Your hope will be that the private sector will take up the slack and move forward.

But I've talked to some small-c conservative economists who worry that by cutting so drastically and so quickly there is a distinct possibility of a recession in the province or at least the recovery not coming back as we would all like.

I caution the government in that regard. We recognize that there are going to be cuts. For anyone to say we can simply continue the level of deficit we have today is unrealistic. I recognize that; others recognize it. It's where you do the cutting, how you do the cutting, how quickly, how drastically. That's essentially where the quarrel will come in this province.

I think the government is moving far too quickly and far too drastically in its program to cut, and I understand that politically that's good to do. I'll talk in a moment about why I believe the government is cutting so deeply.

The government's been embarking on welfare cuts. One area where I was particularly critical, because I thought it was an area where there was some considerable abuse -- and it's not popular sometimes to say it -- was in student welfare. The program, in its concept, was reasonable. Students who were badly abused in a home situation and were prepared to go to school and attend appropriately, make the appropriate effort, would have that opportunity between the age of 16 and 18 to be able to carry on independently if they were unable to stay at home.

What happened, of course, as can always happen with these programs, is that a well-motivated program turned into one which was causing great problems, as you had some young people who simply did not want to live by the rules of the house and took a hike, and the parents may have even been persuaded, let's say, by the young people's actions to have them leave. Sometimes it was a mutual parting and sometimes it was simply the young person not wanting to live under the rules.

But there were some cases, and I think the teachers in the school system will be able to point those out, where there was very significant abuse in the home, where there was an untenable home life, and the student really wanted to work and was prepared to carry on. Unfortunately, the level of abuse in the program was so high that the government has had to move, and I don't criticize the government at all. I say the government had to take that action. I hope there is still opportunity in those very genuine, narrow cases to carry on, but I do believe the government moved in the right direction there.

Not everything the government does, as far as those of us in the opposition are concerned, is wrong. There are programs that have to be examined. That's why I say here was a program that needed examination, the government took some action that had to be taken, and I think the program will be better as a result.

Most people out there, by the way, virtually everybody, would want to see abuse removed. Where there are people abusing the system, not entitled to government payments, people are prepared to see government act upon that, and act quickly and act quite drastically in that case.

Where you would find less support is the government cutting by almost 22% the allocation of people who are genuinely receiving social service benefits. A 22% chunk is a big chunk to take out. Generally, the public might have accepted some kind of trimming in there, but 22% is quite drastic, coupled with the fact that there are cuts in child care for people who required child care so they could be in the workforce, because the choice essentially for some was to either be in the workforce or to be at home, and child care allowed some of them to be in that workforce.

I'm worried about those programs, because all of us want to see as much as possible people in that workforce doing something productive and useful and meaningful to themselves and to society. So that becomes a problem.

What you're going to do at the same time is remove rent controls. That sounds good in right-wing theory and marketplace theory. In the best of all worlds I suppose the marketplace would dictate what those rents shall be. We all recognize, however, that in many municipalities, particularly Metropolitan Toronto, when rent controls are removed, as you say they're going to be -- and the member for York-Mackenzie I thought asked a good question today on that: What are you going to do for senior citizens who will lose certain accommodation?

If you combine those things together for low-income people, it becomes a problem. That's where I think you have to look carefully at what you're doing before you proceed.

It's the same as workfare. If you went out and asked anybody on the street I live on or the street you live on, "Are you in favour of people working instead of being on welfare?" they're going say yes. The actual implementation of the program is going to be interesting. It's going to work for some people if you can create some meaningful jobs for them, and it's going to help them out, but it has to be very carefully advanced and implemented, because in many jurisdictions it hasn't worked and has cost the taxpayer more money in the long run.

I said I didn't want to dwell on the history, but when I keep hearing the history referred to in this House, I think of an oil company we bought in the province of Ontario.

Now, if you had said the NDP was going to buy an oil company in the old days, I would have said, "Yes, I believe it," because they were going to nationalize Inco and they were going to bring in public automobile insurance and so on. They were quite radical in some of the rhetoric. Having assumed the reins of power, however, practicality took over. Not all of these people are wild-eyed, radical socialists. In fact, as I look around the House, I see some who could never be defined as radical, wild-eyed socialists, who might well fit into another party in the Legislature.

But for the life of me, there was a Conservative government buying a big portion of an oil company; I think it was $350 million for Suncor. Some of the members here today, including the Premier, sat in the government caucus and must have acquiesced, because it came forward and there were great rounds of applause for that.

Then I remember the same people here -- probably there were objections in the back room, but they were purchasing a jet, a Challenger jet for the comfort and convenience of the Premier, members of the cabinet and senior government officials. They had it being constructed in Houston, Texas, and I would get up almost daily in the House to ask the Premier of the day, a Progressive Conservative Premier, if indeed there were significant alterations being made to it to make it more comfortable for members of the cabinet and senior government officials.

The government was proceeding with this. I think it was $15 million or $16 million. Day after day, questions would come in the House, and then at long last the Premier rose in the House one day and on page 16 of the statement he said he had, as a magician, converted a Challenger jet into two water bombers and said that was the idea all along, that they'd use them as water bombers.

Of course, my friend the member for Nipissing, who is known in his town as Mike Harris, was a member of that government, as he was a member of the government that purchased Suncor. But I don't want to get too much into that, because if I did I would have to talk about a 35% increase in OHIP premiums initiated by W. Darcy McKeough, the former Progressive Conservative Treasurer of this province and a variety of taxes which were implemented.

In retrospect, am I critical of all of those taxes? I suppose if I wanted to be unfair I should be critical of every one of them. But I knew that the government, if it was going to bring new programs in, beneficial programs and projects, would have to get the money from somewhere. So they brought in those taxes, and they were controversial at the time. They've blurred in the memory of the members who are sitting here today who sat in that government, and those who are newly elected, the new reform caucus, of course do not take those into consideration at all. I thought I would share that with some of the members who perhaps had forgotten.

The member for Carleton is sitting across from me. I will be addressing him -- through you, Mr Speaker, of course -- in a complimentary way a little later on in the speech, and he'll be delighted to know that.

What I believe people are looking for in the province, and your government will have a difficult time with this, I believe -- I hop