Hansard Transcript 1997-Dec-03 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Yesterday at 6 pm Algoma Steel announced the closure of the iron ore division at Wawa. The community's worst fears were realized by this announcement. In this community of 4,200 people, 220 employees face the choice of uprooting and transferring to Sault Ste Marie or losing employment.

The loss of 220 good jobs in Wawa has devastating effects on this small community. The town will lose about 15% of its direct employment, with the inevitable spinoffs through the broader business community. To put this in perspective, Toronto would have to face the loss of nearly a quarter of a million jobs.

In addition, the community will lose a sizeable assessment at the mine from this closure. Presently the community faces a net downloading cost from the province of in excess of $1.5 million. Without provincial assistance, the community will just have to turn over the keys to Premier Harris.

I call on the Minister of Northern Development to immediately and personally go to Wawa to meet with community leaders, to personally assure the community of his support and to provide a significant commitment to the people of Wawa and northern communities.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): As was just indicated, Algoma Steel announced late yesterday afternoon the complete cessation of the operations of Algoma Ore division, the main employer in the community, in June 1998.

Algoma Ore division is the backbone of the economy of Wawa and region. This is devastating for the 220 employees, the business community and the community as a whole.

Algoma Ore employees are very competitive. They've improved their productivity substantially over the years. It's true that Algoma Steel is offering them jobs in Sault Ste Marie, but the real estate market in the community and the retail business sector will be seriously hurt by this announcement. Six months is not enough for the town to adjust.

Algoma Steel has stated that it is committed to working with the community of Wawa and the provincial and federal governments in determining the ways in which the community can be assisted in dealing with the impacts of the closure. It's time for the Conservative government here and the federal Liberal government to make a similar commitment to the one the NDP government made in 1992, when we were faced with the downsizing of Algoma Steel. We worked to preserve the AOD operation. We obtained a Jager Strandboard plant for Wawa, employing 150 people. If we could do that as a government, this Conservative provincial government should be committed to economic development and economic diversification for the Wawa region as well.

SANTA ON WHEELS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I'm pleased to rise today and call the attention of all the members of this House to an excellent charity, Santa on Wheels. Metro Toronto Chairman Alan Tonks and I launched the program at the Toronto Eaton Centre last Thursday, and I held a Scarborough launch at the Scarborough Town Centre the following day.

Santa on Wheels provides toys and gifts to needy children over the holiday season. The program was started by Bell Canada and Nortel telephone pioneers to help children in families that are struggling.

Bell employees and retirees donate their own time to this cause. There are drop boxes at Bell phone centres where people can donate toys and gifts. The program is in its second year, and this is the first year that the donation boxes will be in all the phone centres in the 416 area code.

The gifts will go to families living in Metro Toronto hostels. I'll be delivering gifts to the Scarborough family hostels.

I would ask all the members of the Legislature to throw their full support behind this excellent program in their own ridings. I would further encourage anyone who has a little extra this year to make a donation for somebody who is struggling over the holidays. There are 758 children and 650 adults in Metro Toronto hostels. I ask everyone to do what they can to help the Santa on Wheels program and try to provide a merry Christmas for needy kids and families.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As you are aware, the residents of Sioux Lookout have been under a "boil water" advisory since April 1997. The reason for the advisory, as the minister is well aware, is the large amount of bacteria in the water.

In response to my September 15 question on this issue, you stated: "The ministry is now going through several applications by municipalities across the province and we will be prioritizing those with regard to which ones are in most urgent need. I expect the decisions with regard to the funding to be made in the very near future."

Now that you have had almost three months to study the applications, my constituents in Sioux Lookout, along with the mayor and council, want to know how much longer they will have to wait for your funding announcement to be made in regard to this filtration plant. Unlike most communities that are experiencing water problems, Sioux Lookout's water supply is contaminated by not one but two parasites. They need this government's and the minister's immediate attention to solve the issue.

Again, Minister, let me remind you of your commitment in this House to the Sioux Lookout residents and council on September 15 that decisions would be made "in the very near future." As I have said on many occasions, most communities in this province take access to clean water for granted. Why should the residents of Sioux Lookout be any different?

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today we celebrate the International Day of Disabled Persons, but unfortunately it's not much of a celebration here in the province of Ontario. Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution, "Aid to seniors and the disabled will not be cut." That's a broken promise. Programs have been cut, supports have been eroded and laws have been repealed.

While Bill 160 has been in the spotlight lately, another couple of bills were slipped through, bills that have a tremendous impact on the disabled community yet did not have the attention because we were all captivated in the province with the dispute around education.

Is it any wonder that Mike Harris is hiding some of these things? Let's take a look at Bill 96, the end, the death of rent controls. That has tremendous impact for the disabled community. There's also the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, some aspects of which I've been very clear that I support and think are good, but there are aspects in there which give bureaucrats the power to determine disabled persons incapable of dealing with their own affairs, without going through due process, and also aspects that allow disabled persons to be fingerprinted.

What about the promise for the Ontarians With Disabilities Act? The Premier promised that. It is nowhere on the legislative agenda. When I asked him last year what he had to say to the disabled community, he said, "Sorry, but we're going to do it." The new minister has refused to meet with the disabled community on this. I call on the government to at least live up to that promise. Pass the Ontarians With Disabilities Act.

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE WEB SITE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I wish to congratulate the new chief of the Durham Regional Police Service, Kevin McAlpine, and his staff for their initiative in becoming the first police service in Canada to use the Internet to receive crime reports from victims.

This user-friendly site was designed by Constable Leon Presner of Durham Regional Police Service. He is continuing to develop the Web page so that the information is safe and secure. An important aspect of this new service on the Net is that there will be a Web page dedicated to victim outreach, with a psychologist on board. As well, all groups, from teens to seniors, are encouraged to write on issues of importance to them personally. Also accepted on the site will be reports of lost-and-found and missing articles.

There are many advantages of this new policing service. For instance:

(1) More accessibility to police services, with opportunities for growth.

(2) Police officers will have more time to be on the road to deal with higher-priority calls.

(3) Costs are low, approximately $400 for startup.

To access the new Durham Regional Police Service Web site, call up www.police.durham.on.ca.

I commend the efforts of the Durham Regional Police Service in finding new and inventive ways of providing enhanced and better service -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

1340

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Over the last few weeks we have seen this government rush to push its contentious legislation through the Legislature as quickly as possible. While they cannot move quickly enough to steamroll public opinion, they drag their feet when it comes to legislation that has wide public support.

On June 26, the Minister of Agriculture introduced Bill 146, the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. This act is intended to update existing legislation which governs farming practices in Ontario. The act was brought forward for second reading on September 24, and after receiving minimal debate it was shelved in favour of other legislation.

The question is, why? Our caucus agreed to facilitate the passage of this bill and we have seen in the past that the government has nothing against the prompt passage of legislation. So what's the problem? Why does the minister not continue with second reading of Bill 146?

Many of the new amalgamated municipalities, which include rural and urban areas, are eager to see this legislation pass before January 1, 1998. The minister should be getting pressure from his own caucus. I suggest he bring the legislation back to the House so we can discuss issues surrounding this bill. We see no reason for delay and urge the minister to bring this back so we can pass it by year's end. Minister, get your House leader on side today.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Recently I was pleased to have the opportunity to attend the annual Boys and Girls Clubs scholarship awards presentations.

Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario believe that every kid has potential. Knowing the rising costs of post-secondary education and the financial challenges faced by many of our young people, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario started a scholarship program in 1992. To date, over $140,000 has been given out to 136 youth across Ontario who are striving to achieve their potential.

This has taken place through the help of many private corporate donors and certainly some public institutions like the Toronto Raptors Foundation and the Blue Jays Charitable Foundation.

I want to particularly note today, among the recipients for this year, four people who are active residents in the riding of Dovercourt. They are:

Connie LaRusso, who has been a member of the Dovercourt Boys and Girls Club for 10 years. She's currently in her third year of the sociology and law and society program at York University.

Telly Russo is studying logistics management at George Brown College. He has been part of the Dovercourt club for 14 years.

Anna Maria DiPaolo is enrolled in the general arts program at York University, with the goal of teaching in the future. She has been an active part of the Dovercourt club for 11 years.

Steven Svarnas has been with the St Alban's club for 12 years. He is currently in year four of the kinesiology and health sciences program at York University.

To them and to the rest of the recipients this year and to the Boys and Girls Club movement, my congratulations and thanks for the good work they continue to do.

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I rise today to talk about an important commitment this government made to the people of Ontario in its effort to create jobs. I'm speaking about the elimination of red tape.

Government red tape and unnecessary regulations have burdened this province for far too long, resulting in barriers to job creation, slowing the province's economic growth and increasing public frustration.

Statistics show that job creation and business productivity are significantly affected by red tape. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 43% of the firms spent more than six hours a week and 17% spent more than 10 hours a week on government paperwork.

This government began the process of identifying and eliminating red tape with the establishment of the Red Tape Review Commission in 1995. It was my good fortune to be made its chairman, one of the most significant jobs outside of cabinet.

We would never have gotten to where we are today without the dedicated involvement of my colleagues and our external advisory committee.

I'm proud of the progress the government and our commission have achieved, first in identifying the problem; second, in designing a process to deal with it. The government has responded to our recommendations, first, by extending our mandate; second, by implementing a regulatory impact and competitiveness test; third, by referring all regulatory policies to the commission for prior approval.

There's more red tape to be found and cut. We're determined to do it. It is a pleasure to inform you that the Red Tape Commission continues its efforts and will be looking to everyone, both inside and outside government, to help us identify red tape. Our efforts are supported by groups such as CFIB, the Council of Universities -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent that we be allowed to wear red ribbons in regard to AIDS Awareness Week for today and tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's today and tomorrow. Agreed? Agreed.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might, I just want to speak to the point of order originally raised by the member for Algoma and the member for Fort William.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a second on that, and I will come right back to you.

Members of the House, the member for Downsview and others, there comes a point when I've got to say, "Okay, I've had enough submissions." Even if I ask you to put it in writing, you're going to give it to me in writing, and that means I've got to stop the process and read that submission. I have in fact investigated, checked with the authorities, gone through the whole process, and I'm going to render a decision.

I really hate to tell anyone they can't submit any more, but by submitting, the process again is I've got to review your submission. If you really believe that at this time your submission is offering me any information that's truly germane and new to the submissions that have been previously offered, then I will hear it. But quite frankly, I can't imagine that there's anything you're going to offer at this time that I myself and the staff and all those others who have submitted haven't offered.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you, Speaker. The reason I rose on a point of order was not to repeat old ground. It's related directly to the submission that the government House leader forwarded to you, which I've had an opportunity to review. It's in response to that, and I think you might find the point. I will be brief and I will make very few points.

The Speaker: Okay. I'm not going to turn the submission down, but again I'll have to take this into account and report back at the earliest convenience.

Ms Castrilli: As I indicated at the outset, I will be very brief. I will be responding to the submissions of the government House leader, pointing out a number of the submissions that were made there and responding to them.

The first is the government's contention that standing order 51 is to be limited only to motions, and they point to the proposition that standing order 51 appears in part XI of the standing orders dealing with motions.

I'd just like to point out to you, and I won't repeat the standing order to you because I'm sure you're very familiar with it, that the government in its own submission admits that bills are proceeded with by way of motion for each of the three readings, and indeed in committee with amendments. I submit to you that this is conclusive evidence that standing order 51 is indeed applicable to this question.

1350

The second contention of the government is that standing order 51 is in conflict with section 3 of the Statutes Act. Again, I won't read section 3 of the Statutes Act. I imagine you know it quite well by now. What I would say to you is that this assertion is not applicable in this case.

Section 3 clearly refers to an act, and Bills 160 and 149, I submit to you, are not acts in our parliamentary or legislative procedures. I refer you to Black's Law Dictionary, the fifth edition, at page 24, which distinguishes between a bill and an act as follows, and if you don't mind, Speaker, I will read that to you:

"When introduced into the first House of the Legislature a piece of proposed legislation is known as a bill. When it is passed to the next House it may then be referred to as an act. After enactment," which is the particular case here, "the terms `law' and `act' may be used interchangeably."

In other words, an act is a law, not a bill, and therefore section 3 of the Statutes Act cannot refer to either Bills 149 or 160 that are before us.

The third submission of the government is that the bills in question do not deal with substantially the same subject matter and therefore can proceed simultaneously in this Legislature. I think the parliamentary procedure is clear that you cannot proceed with two similar bills in the Legislature, and the House of Commons decision in 1968 on the Income Tax Act is proof of that proposition.

The members for Fort William and Algoma have already amply demonstrated that sections of Bill 149 and Bill 160 do in fact deal with the same subject matter. I will not repeat those arguments, but the bill ought to be ruled out of order on the basis of those submissions.

The fourth contention of the government is that the motion for second reading -

The Speaker: Order, members. If you're having a meeting, could I ask that you have the meeting out in the lobbies, please. I would like to hear the submission.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines-Brock. Thank you.

Ms Castrilli: The government's fourth contention is, "A motion for second reading of Bill 164 is not a motion to amend Bill 149" - and I'm quoting directly from their text.

The Speaker: It's not difficult, folks. It's not that difficult at all. If you want to meet, go meet in the lobbies.

Ms Castrilli: I will read from the government's submission as follows: "A motion for second reading of Bill 164 is not a motion to amend Bill 149, though the effect of passing Bill 164 will be to make such amendments to the law if Bill 149 receives royal assent." I submit to you, Speaker, that the effect of the government's amendments is the same as if they had amended the bill. The government is attempting to do through the back door what it could not do through the front door because of its own time allocation motion.

Finally, the government has acted recklessly. It has acted without thinking. They have established rules which they themselves cannot follow. They cannot respect their own time allocation motion, which is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in at this moment.

Speaker, I need not remind you that in an earlier ruling you indicated that privileges of the members of this House could be abridged by a time allocation motion. I ask you now to ensure that the government respect those very time allocation motions they have put in place. For these reasons, the government's submission is ill considered and I ask you to consider the bill out of order.

The Speaker: I will take those submissions, as well as the others, and certainly report back at the earliest possible time.

Are you standing on a point of order?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes.

The Speaker: I assume it's what I have in my hand. No. It's on a different one?

Mr Wildman: On this one. I just wanted to make the point that the member for Downsview has given additional information which basically supports the position taken by myself and by the member for Fort William in terms of the application of standing order 51 with regard to Bill 164. I hope that submission will not prolong the process, to make it difficult for you to make your ruling prior to the government House leader's ill-advised determination to call Bill 164 even though it is clearly out of order.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr91, An Act respecting The London Community Foundation. Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr91, An Act respecting The London Community Foundation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, December 15, 1997, until Thursday, December 18, 1997; that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on December 15 and 16, 1997; and that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on December 17 and 18, 1997, for the purpose of conducting government business, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, of which I've provided you with a written submission, regarding the motion on the House calendar that the government House leader has just put. The government House leader has tabled a motion this week that would extend the sitting of the Legislature for one week and sets out times that the Legislature would meet during this additional week. The government House leader is now attempting to argue, by calling the motion during routine motions, that this House calendar motion is a routine motion, not a substantive motion. I think it's clear that this is improper.

You will be aware, Speaker, that standing order 34 says that the routine proceeding entitled "Motions" is for the purpose of "routine motions that are part of the technical procedure of the House" such as "for times of meeting and adjournment of the House" - and I emphasize times of meeting and adjournment of the House - and for changes in membership of committees and similar non-substantive motions. These routine motions do not require notice. The standing order is clear. Routine motions deal only with the times of meeting and adjournment of this House, not with the dates that this House will meet.

The motion that the government wishes to deal with today sets out four additional calendar days that the House will meet. However, that actually means an additional eight sessional days that the House will meet, thanks to the new rule changes this government imposed on the Legislature. Because of these recent rule changes to the standing orders, afternoon and evening sittings are counted, as you know, as separate sessional days. This motion makes substantive changes to the House calendar, changes that are outside the parameters of the standing orders.

A substantive motion is defined in standing order 48 as, "One that is not incidental to any other business of the House, but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House." These motions do require notice. If the government House leader believed that the House calendar motion was routine, he would not have announced it for debate in the business of the House statement last Thursday.

At that time the government House leader announced, and I quote from Thursday's Hansard, page 13359, "On Wednesday afternoon, we expect to deal with Bill 161.... In the evening, we will be dealing with a House calendar motion. If that finishes, which I fully expect it will with the cooperation of the other parties, Bill 108, the provincial offences act, will be called in committee of the whole House."

Obviously, on Thursday last week the government House leader believed this was a substantive motion. He was not of the opinion that the House calendar motion was a routine motion or he would not have given notice of debate. I ask you to rule whether this is indeed a substantive motion and requires notice and is subject to debate in the House.

1400

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Your party is not known for long sessions, that's for sure.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you want to make a submission, member for Brant-Haldimand?

Member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am actually quite surprised that we would see the government House leader rise at this time with what he is trying to pass off obviously as a very routine motion. Even the draconian new rules of the administration of Mike Harris, this present government, surely set out that there shall be time for debate, because we are clearly outside the normal procedures of this House, outside the calendar which has been printed and circulated to members of the House. It may well be that the opposition would be delighted to have the House sit that additional week, but certainly in our view, unless there is an agreement made at a House leaders' meeting which would negate that, it will be necessary to debate it, keeping in mind again that we are talking about a two-for-one situation. Now we have two sessional days in one day; it's almost like Houdini or Mandrake the Magician, in that the government now has two days that it counts for one day.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for -

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Bradley: I just wanted to mention that I had the information from him. He remembers Mandrake the Magician.

It isn't routine for the House to sit that additional week if it is to accommodate controversial legislation, because the Speaker will know that the House rules have been changed so that the government in its last two weeks, for instance, may now bring in new legislation despite the argument made by the member for Parry Sound, the former government House leader, so clearly we would be expecting the government would concede that this is a substantive motion and that the House leader would want to discuss this at a House leaders' meeting rather than trying to slip it in this afternoon as a routine motion.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I did give notice to both of the other House leaders that I would be calling this during routine proceedings, and I believe that's why the House leader for the third party has submitted written reasons.

"Under the proceeding `Motions,' the government House leader may move routine motions that are part of a technical procedure of the House, including motions under standing order 9 and other motions for times of meeting and adjournment of the House, and motions for changes in membership of committees and similar non-substantive matters. Except as provided by standing order 9, these routine matters do not require notice."

Our motion as tabled provides notice as required under standing order 9(c) for sittings from 6:30 to 9:30 pm, and standing order 9(e) for sittings from 6:30 pm to midnight. Further, our motion fulfils the requirements of standing order 34, as it represents a motion that is part of the technical procedure of the House which establishes the times of meeting and adjournment of the House. Standing order 8(a) defines the meeting time of the House. It reads, "The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays at 1:30 pm, and on Thursdays at 10 am, unless otherwise ordered."

I would submit, however, that the wording of standing order 8(a) in its specific references to the days of the week when the House shall meet implicitly defines meeting times as both days of the week and hours of those days. For instance, the standing order does not permit the House to sit on Fridays or during the course of the weekend. To rely on a literal, narrow reading or translation of a standing order would not be appropriate.

I would argue that in spite of the standing orders, we have on many occasions in this House moved during routine proceedings to change the days on which this House sits.

On June 28, 1988, during routine proceedings there was an order that the House meet from 9 am until 12 noon on Wednesday, June 29, 1988, with routine proceedings to take place at 1 pm. There was a division at that time and the majority carried; that was carried.

On December 11, 1990 - sorry, Mr Speaker, that's not one of the examples that I wanted to use.

Mr Wildman: I wonder why.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm finding it extremely difficult, and especially back here as well. Folks behind here, you've got to keep it down back here. All about this place there are so many meetings going on it's distracting. I'm going to ask the members -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, it's not helpful for you to jabber on right now. If the members would please come back to order, I'd appreciate it, so I can hear the submissions. Thank you.

Hon Mr Sterling: During routine proceedings on November 16, 1987, the House decided to consider government business on November 19 and private members' business to be considered on November 26. In other words, we were not only dealing during routine proceedings with times but we were dealing with dates on which the House would sit.

On December 30 we did the same thing. During routine proceedings we decided that the House would sit on December 31 for certain kinds of business. On January 6, 1988, during routine proceedings we decided that on January 7 we would sit to deal with certain kinds of business. On June 16, 1988, during routine proceedings we decided that the House would not meet on June 23.

Therefore, there has been ample evidence of motions during routine proceedings being put forward, notwithstanding that there was not unanimous consent during all of the examples I have given but the motions carried in favour of the government to move those motions.

I guess the other point is, does it really make sense for us in terms of a normal, lengthy debate to deal with matters which are related to the times when this House should meet or should not meet?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I think where you start is with the standing orders and the plain reading of the standing orders that were adopted by this Parliament just two or three months ago.

If you look at the table of contents, section III is called "Meetings of the House." It starts off by setting out the parliamentary calendar and it specifically states in section 6(a), "During a Parliament, the House shall meet (a) from the Monday following the week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act..." etc, and then in 6(a)(ii) it states "from the fourth Monday in September to the Thursday preceding the week in which Remembrance Day falls and from the Monday of the week following Remembrance Day to the second Thursday in December," which happens to be December 11. Section 6 deals with the calendar.

In section 7 you get more specific as to when the House can meet, taking into account the calendar that has been set out in section 6. Then it gets more specific as to how the meetings will actually take place and the times of the meetings.

To suggest, as the government House leader is suggesting, that somehow the calendar, on which the meeting times set out in section 8 are based, can be changed unilaterally without changing the calendar at all is simply not correct. You start off at the calendar, then, if you are within the time frame of that calendar as to when the House normally meets, and then as to when it can meet within the calendar outside of those times, up until 9:30 at night or 12 o'clock at night.

It would be our submission that the rule as set in section 9, which is clearly within that section of the rules that talk about the meetings of the House, has to be subject to whatever is set out in the very first section under that particular section dealing with the meetings of the House, has got to be within the House calendar parameters as set out in section 6.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, there are just a couple of points that I want to make with respect to this point of order. First, the government House leader sets out a number of precedents. I think if you reviewed all of the precedents on this issue, the number of times that House calendar motions have been called forward, you would see there are precedents on both sides.

In other words, there have been times when it has been dealt with as a routine motion, most often I would say in times where there have been unanimous consents or, if not unanimous consents, there has been an agreement of the House in proceeding that way in the sense, for example, that the motion is dealing with the House sitting an extra day, being the next day, or something in which there have been time implications that have led to an agreement among House leaders that this item should be dealt with expeditiously, whether or not the content of the motion has been agreed to.

But I think there are precedents on both sides and you will find many, many more occasions in which it has been dealt with as a substantive motion. The point that I want to make is, if you are unable, simply by looking at precedents, to come to a determination with respect to the question that has been put before you, then I would ask you to look at what has happened most recently with respect to the changes of the rules in this Legislative Assembly.

We are referring now, of course, to whether or not this motion that has come forward is a routine motion under section 34. As has been pointed out to you, that refers to technical procedural motions, including motions under standing order 9. Standing order 9 is the section of the rules of order which sets out times for the sitting of the House and the extension till 9:30, for example, or the extension till midnight, and other motions "for times of meeting and adjournment of the House."

That phrase essentially is lifted out of the previous rules of order. The corresponding rule of order in the previous standing rules is number 35, which says, "Under the proceeding `Motions,' the government House leader may move routine motions that are part of the technical procedure of the House" - those words are identical. The reference in here to section 9 is new because that section 9 is brand-new, but it goes on to say "such as for times of meeting and adjournment of the House...." Essentially, we're dealing with the same words.

I would point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the new section that has been added, section 9, does specify certain new things with respect to motions dealing with the times that this House meets and sits and the times of the day at which it meets and sits. It does, for example, allow for evening sessions which are new sessional days that sit till 9:30. It also sets out a new procedure for a motion which allows the House sittings to be extended at any time past 6 or past 9:30 to midnight. In the past, you know that would have been provided as a motion under routine motions. It would be debated. This sets out rules which say it's not open to amendment, it's not open to debate, the immediate five-minute bell.

The point I am trying to make is that the rules with respect to motions and how they are considered, which are dealing with the times of meetings of the House and adjournment of the House, have been specifically altered and updated by these rules. The government did not put forward any proposals in rule changes with respect to dealing with the House calendar motion.

Had it been the wish of this Legislative Assembly as expressed through its majority and through the government House leader's office, there would have been specific provision put forward for that. In every other instance where the government was attempting to limit the House's ability to debate motions with respect to the times, meetings and adjournments of the House, they specifically made provision for that in the new rules set out under the new section 9.

I believe that, both in the absence of something clearly having been set out and in the preponderance of precedents which say it should be treated as a substantive motion, although I will acknowledge there are precedents on both sides of that question, I believe it is incumbent upon you to rule that this is out of order at this time, as the government House leader, as recently as last week when he gave notice, believed it himself to be.

The Speaker: We will take a 10-minute recess.

The House recessed from 1415 to 1425.

The Speaker: Thank you for the submissions of all the members on all sides of the House. I don't find that this fits in with routine motions and it must be called an order of the day.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to have all-party statements on International Day for Persons With Disabilities.

The Speaker: You're simply asking for unanimous consent. I'll just put it: Unanimous consent for statements from all parties on what was mentioned by the member for Beaches-Woodbine? Agreed? No.

Time for oral questions.

Interjection: Deferred vote.

Mr Bradley: Can we go back?

The Speaker: Yes, you can, because the Speaker is omnipotent on those issues.

DEFERRED VOTES

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N^O 2)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 149, An Act to continue the reforms begun by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 and to make other amendments respecting the financing of local governments / Projet de loi 149, Loi continuant les réformes amorcées par la Loi de 1997 sur le financement équitable des municipalités et apportant d'autres modifications relativement au financement des administrations locales.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1428 to 1433.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 42.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that this bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Gani Abdurakhmanov and his delegation from the republic of Uzbekistan. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Attorney General. I'm sure, like all of us in this Legislature, you cannot help but feel some shame, some sadness and some embarrassment at what happened to the Dionne quintuplets in Ontario so many years ago.

You will well know that in 1934 they were taken from their parents and made wards of the province. They were placed in a special hospital, and over the next 10 years they were put on display. Over five million visitors came from around the world to visit them. These young girls generated millions and millions of dollars for Ontario. The Ontario government exploited these children.

What I want to ask you to consider right here and now is whether it would not be appropriate in those circumstances to stand up today on behalf of the people of Ontario and to offer the surviving Dionne quintuplets an apology.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I have indicated, we have certainly not shut the door on discussions with the Dionnes. We have a great deal of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in. As I've indicated, based on a legal review of the facts, it's very difficult to justify conventional compensation. But I have indicated there is a moral issue here; the government is looking at the moral issue. The fact that we are doing that should satisfy the answer the Leader of the Opposition is looking for. Certainly we are taking steps to resolve these issues.

Mr McGuinty: I'm simply asking for an apology. I think that in all the circumstances, that is the least we can do today on behalf of the people of the province for what happened to the Dionne quintuplets. They were taken from their parents. They were housed in a special hospital. They generated millions and millions of dollars; the estimate is as high as $500 million. The Ontario government produced tens of thousands of pamphlets that were distributed as part of a tourism effort to lure people here to Ontario, particularly to northern Ontario. This was the middle of the Depression. All kinds of jobs were created. There are some very real questions that remain outstanding. But all I'm asking today is, given that the government was to act as good parents at the time, do we not owe an apology to the Dionne quintuplets?

Hon Mr Harnick: When we talk about these issues, we have to put it in the context of the law of the day. In my understanding of these issues, the public trustee was involved. There was an appointment, through the government of the day, of trustees to manage the affairs. Certainly in the context of the laws of the day, the interests of the Dionnes were looked after.

By today's standards, I don't think the laws that existed to protect children in that particular time are comparable, but certainly we are taking a look at the moral issues. We want to take the necessary steps to resolve these issues, and I hope we will.

1440

Mr McGuinty: Minister, on behalf of the Dionne quintuplets and I think on behalf of most Ontarians who developed some understanding of what happened, I'm looking for two simple words from you, on behalf of all of us. I can't give those words. I'm not the government and you are. All I'm asking you to do is to say on behalf of the people of the province to the Dionne quintuplets: "I'm sorry for what happened. I apologize." Nothing more and nothing less.

Surely, if we are to govern our relations here purely according to the system of law, we are in a sorry, sorry state. I believe you're not saying that. You understand there's some kind of moral obligation here. I think recognizing that moral obligation begins with two very simple words, and I'm going to ask you once again to say them. I want you to stand up and say on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario to the quintuplets, "I'm sorry for what happened."

Hon Mr Harnick: Without question, I have the greatest sympathy and I am sorry for the plight the Dionnes find themselves in. I am sorry that the laws of that time were not adequate to protect children. I am sorry that we have had this situation develop and that the Dionnes are in the situation they're in.

That is precisely why we are taking a look at this issue. We want to try and ensure that the Dionnes will be properly looked after. Certainly, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I am sorry that this happened, going back to the way the laws were written and the way children were protected by the laws, going back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I say to the leader of the official opposition, yes, I am sorry about that, on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Just to recap what has happened on the hospital closure front in Ontario, first of all, Mike Harris, before he became Premier, promised he wouldn't close any hospitals. Then your government set up a hospital closing commission and now 30 hospitals have been closed. You became the Minister of Health. You immediately concluded that there was no vision for health care in Ontario, that there was no plan in place, and you quite rightly became alarmed. Then you said that it was important to slow things down, and I agree entirely with that.

What I want to know now is, how is it that ordering the closure of five more hospitals is slowing down? Doesn't slowing down mean that you take your foot off the gas and put it on the brake pedal? That's not what has happened here. The hospital closing commission has proceeded to order the closure of five more hospitals. How does that constitute slowing down?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, we have the Health Services Restructuring Commission and it has now made some decisions that affect about 75% of the hospitals that are going to be reviewed. I think it's very important to understand that they are coming to the end of that particular role and at that point in time they will be assuming an advisory role.

In the interim, I have indicated that when the final recommendations are issued, we will make sure we have the appropriate community supports and long-term-care facilities in place to ensure that, as we take a look at the changing and the aging population, we will have the spaces, we will have the care that is necessary to deal with the population in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: You said it was time to slow down. They're still out there travelling the province, some renegade operation, closing hospitals. Don't you really think it's time to reel them in and tell them to stop? You said it was time to slow down. You have effectively recognized that what they're doing is dangerous to our health care. They're ordering the closure of hospitals and we're not taking the time to get it right. We're not taking the time to ensure that the community-based care that's necessary when you shut down a hospital is first in place.

Don't you think that in all the circumstances the right thing to do if you really want to slow down is to order the restructuring commission, your closing commission, to stop its work? Isn't it time to disband it and for you to assume your rightful responsibility as the person responsible for hospitals in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very important to remember that this province is the last province in Canada to embark on this review and this restructuring of health care. It's also important to remember that during the 10 years when the other governments were in office, there was the removal of 10,000 beds. However, we did not have one single facility closed.

What we are attempting to do is ensure that patient care will be provided first and foremost. What that is going to mean is that we need to take a look at what is required for patients in this province at this time, and it's not unused hospital spaces. It means we're going to have to reinvest our money into the community supports and into long-term-care facilities. It means we're going to have to make some changes, changes that have been made everywhere else in Canada already.

Mr McGuinty: I think I've heard this tune before from the previous minister. This minister was going to slow things down. She was going to get a handle on what was happening over at the ministry. Your platitude that you just uttered will do nothing for the people of Ontario. Go out there and knock on a few doors. What you're doing to health care in Ontario is scaring the heck out of Ontarians. Just go out there and knock on a few doors and you'll quickly discover that.

Let me tell you why I'm really concerned. In your instructions to the hospital closing commission - I've got a copy of them here - it says, "The following are the duties of the commission." Duty 3 says it's up to the commission to determine the timing of the implementation of local hospital restructuring plans. How can you tell us, on the one hand, that you're going to slow things down; on the other hand, clearly your instructions to the commission, irrevocable apparently, are for it to make its own decisions about hospital closures in Ontario.

If you're really going to slow things down, you have to disband the commission. There's no other option. Why don't you just stand up and say that right now? "It's gone. We don't have to worry about it any more."

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated to you, it is time to embark on reform in the field of health care in this province. The reform is long overdue. What we are simply doing is taking a look at the aging population, we are taking a look at the growing population, we are taking a look at the needs of the population in this province and we are now convinced that it makes absolutely no sense to have 10,000 beds being closed under your government and the previous government. So we are going to invest those dollars that were previously used on administration and unused buildings in patient care.

In fact, I will just read from a quote that was made by the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to the closure of hospitals, when you said: "I would have as an overriding objective improvement of our health care system. A component of that might be the closure of a hospital." So even you recognized that it is necessary to take a look at where -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party, member for Fort York. Come to order, please, Minister of Health.

1450

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a question to mon ami the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday we saw an unprecedented event: Conservative members voting against the government's download bill. On the radio this morning the member for Oakville South said that the government had botched the issue on downloading. I go further and say that they have botched the issue by downloading $1.4 billion to local taxpayers. I go further by saying they've botched the issue by dumping a ticking time bomb of $200 million in housing repair costs on the new megacity. I go further and say you botched the issue by refusing to reveal the criteria for your transition funds, less than a month before municipalities start paying the bills.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Marchese: To quote the member for Wentworth North, "We said we were going to run the government like a business, and here we are, less than a month to go, we still don't have the figures," says the member.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank my good friend for the question. The members of this party are more than free to express their opinions on any issue. In all parties, some members vote -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: I know my good friend knows that members of his own party often voted against their government. Bill 167 I think rings a bell.

With respect to what we're doing with Bill 152 and the Who Does What trades, I will repeat once again that the effect of the Who Does What trades on municipalities is revenue-neutral. We have committed that it will be revenue-neutral, both myself and the Premier; 79 members of our caucus accept that. There are several who have doubts; that's their prerogative. However, Mr Speaker, I can assure you and the members that the exercise of the trades will be revenue-neutral for every municipality.

The Speaker: Supplementary; member for London Centre.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, not only are you not telling the municipalities what the tax burden is going to be, but you're not even acceding, and you haven't today, that they're in danger of losing a lot of services.

The services we're most worried about are public health services, which your Who Does What panel clearly told you not to download on to municipalities. The protection of public health is a protection for all the citizens of Ontario. There are many programs that are likely not to have the same level of funding as they had when they were 100% funded by the province because you've downloaded that $1.2 billion more in costs to municipalities, and yet you're trying to suggest that they're going to be able to provide the same level of services.

Minister, we're very worried about what Bill 152 has done in terms of the guarantee of public health services, the protection of the health of the province. You botched the entire program. Are you insisting on botching the health of the population of Ontario too?

Hon Mr Leach: I'll try and make this as simple as I can for the members opposite. We're taking $2.5 billion off the property taxes by assuming 50% of the cost of education. We're also providing, on an ongoing annual basis, roughly $600 million in support to the municipalities. In exchange, the municipalities will accept about $1.3 billion in hard services on roads and transit and about $1.7 billion in social services. We're asking the municipalities to assume 20% of social services. So 1.7 and 1.3, and 2.5 and 0.6; in simple mathematics, that works out to be a wash. Even the members opposite might be able to understand that if they worked on it a little bit.

Mrs Boyd: No one believes you. You've heard from all the municipalities that they don't believe you. This is in no way a neutral wash. You put in a bill like Bill 152, which is going to make the choices of municipalities very clear. They will have to look at downloading services, or destroying services, because they will not have the dollars. What's more, you've taken away the authority of the medical officer of health and the provincial medical officer of health to override the decisions of individual municipalities.

Let's look at programs where municipalities have already cut: dental care in the city of Metropolitan Toronto, for example. They've cut it by 50% already and they're still meeting provincial standards.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs Boyd: The AIDS committee had a conference today and they're talking about the issue of anonymous testing for AIDS and HIV; they're talking about condom distribution; they're talking about needle distribution. These will now be up to municipalities to decide and the province will no longer be funding them. This is an erosion of public health -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know how much simpler I can make this. When you take $2.5 billion off the education property tax, add another $600 million of funding to municipalities, ask the municipalities to accept $2.5 billion of other responsibilities - 2.5 minus 2.5 equals zero. When they were in power, it was the member just speaking who said, "The result of disentanglement will increase accountability, which is more important than ever in today's economic climate." Absolutely. We're asking the municipalities to take control of programs that they're best able to deliver. That includes the health programs and everything else.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Beaches-Woodbine, Riverdale and London Centre, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: I heard the member opposite say "completely lost." I once was lost, but now I'm found.

To the member opposite, this is a trade. It's a trade in the delivery of services. It's a trade that's even and revenue-neutral. We've committed to do that. The municipalities understand that; most of the members understand that. Obviously, these people over here are too simple to understand it.

The Speaker: New question; the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I didn't know the hymn Amazing Grace was written about Al Leach.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. The uproar over Bill 160 hasn't gone away. Let's look at your new property taxing powers. The provincial government will now be setting residential and business property taxes in secret. The government has given a few hints about how they're going to do it. The Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group has a report today that projects the impact based on the little information that the government has made public.

It shows that business property taxes in greater Toronto will increase by $139 million. Business taxpayers will be hit hard in Burlington and Oakville. They'll be going up 16%. In Mississauga, the education property tax on business will increase by 18.4%. What do you think Hazel McCallion is going to think about that?

1500

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Wildman: Don't you understand that people are upset about what you're doing in Bill 160 and they want you to rethink the whole process? Will you allow people to have a say -

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): In general, I think the people of Ontario are very much in favour of reform in the education system.

I would say in particular with regard to those clauses that pertain to taxation, I think the member opposite will know that there is every indication as of this morning that this is a matter that will be, or indeed is, before the courts of the province of Ontario, so I'm somewhat restricted in terms of what I can say. But I will say, in terms of choosing the mechanism that we did, that the objectives were to halt the skyrocketing of education taxes which had taken place and to ensure that the tax system was fair and equitable across Ontario.

Mr Wildman: I suppose the government is now going to use this as an excuse for not giving us the funding formula: "The matter's before the courts."

The minister didn't agree with or deny the figures that are put out in the Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group document. These are projections of the impact. Why won't you release the impact studies that surely your government has done with regard to this? There are going to be winners and losers, and the power in determining who wins and who loses is all in your hands.

As the alternative budget says: "How much will be the change? Only Mike Harris knows, and he's not saying." How you decide, we'll never know.

Why won't you let us know how you decided this, what the impacts will be, so that business property taxpayers in the province will have some idea and the municipalities will have some idea of the impact of Bill 160 and your changes when you set property taxes for education?

Hon David Johnson: This is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance. The Minister of Finance has stood in this House and indicated that there will be a freeze provision which will apply to property taxes in the future - that residential property taxes would be frozen, business taxes, in total - while there's a new assessment that's coming in. I think the members of this House have to bear in mind that there's a new property assessment system which will be introduced next year within the province of Ontario which will be a fairer system right across the province. That will obviously play into the equation as well.

Nevertheless, in terms of the businesses here today, in total they will not pay more in property taxes for education purposes than they're paying today. That is something that the business community has been asking for for years and years, and finally a government has come along and made that commitment.

Mr Wildman: The minister knows full well that his colleague the Minister of Finance said he was committed to a freeze in total revenue, not in individual property tax bills for education. He himself admitted there would be some going up and some going down, and not just because of reassessment. The fact is, there will be winners and losers, and it's this government that will determine which business property taxpayers are winners and which ones are big losers.

Do you agree that it is unacceptable for business property taxpayers in Mississauga to see over an 18% increase, or those in Burlington and Oakville to see over a 16% increase? Can you confirm those impacts, and if not, what are the projections that you've got in your government?

Hon David Johnson: Any numbers of that nature are pure speculation at this point in time. Again, the Minister of Finance has been here in this House and explained the situation, that the assessment numbers are being generated across the province. The vast majority of the assessment numbers are in, but there are some final numbers to come in to ensure that the Ministry of Finance has the total picture.

The Minister of Finance has indicated for the business community that the total taxes raised from the businesses which are here today will not exceed next year the revenues from this year. From business to business, depending on the assessment situation, the new assessment going in, some assessments may be up a little bit, some assessments may be down a little bit, and to that degree, yes, the Minister of Finance has indicated that the taxes paid by some businesses may be up, to be balanced by those which go down. That's the nature of a fair system.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is also for the Minister of Education. You and Mike Harris have tried to justify your cuts to educational spending by claiming that your changes to the educational system are going to bring about significant savings. You have refused to make a commitment to reinvest any of those savings, but that's not my question today.

My concern today is that your so-called savings are not going to be there at all and that some of your changes may actually lead to increased costs. You will know that your studies have shown that at best your amalgamation of school boards would lead to savings of $150 million. You also know that public school boards have said that in fact those amalgamations will lead to increased costs of $300 million to $500 million a year.

If the boards are right and you are wrong, will you cover these millions of dollars of increased costs or will school boards have to just eat those costs along with your cuts?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): If you have well over 100 school boards today and you have about 70 school boards in the future and you have that much less administration and that much less overhead, I think the people of Ontario would have every right to expect that indeed there will be savings through those amalgamations in the province. The kind of information we have had, including some assistance within the private sector, has indicated that $150 million is indeed a valid number.

In terms of the moneys the school boards will get, I'm sure the member opposite is aware through the booklet we put out, Excellence in Education: Student-focused Funding for Ontario, that there are moneys contained within the proposed formula for students through a foundation grant, through special purpose grants and through accommodation grants. These formulae are being revised at this time, going through their final stages. The boards will be totally aware of the exact amount of money in the very near future, and it will support their needs for their students.

Mrs McLeod: You really can't continue to play word games and express your vague sense of hope and expectation about educational financing much longer. You are now totally responsible for educational funding, and at some point you are going to have to accept that responsibility and tell us exactly what you are going to pay for and what you are not going to pay for.

Let me ask you a simpler funding question very relevant for today. Today you will force through another bill, Bill 161, and we still don't know what the costs of that particular bill are going to be. Nobody has said how much boards will have to pay to keep your commitment to pay the $40 per day per family. There are boards that are worried that the costs of meeting your commitment will be greater than any savings they had during the two-week protest, and all boards are concerned that they are going to be expected to simply eat the administrative costs, which could mean thousands of dollars that should be spent on things like school supplies or school maintenance. Will you guarantee today that you will cover any additional costs of your commitment over and above any savings?

Hon David Johnson: It's expected that the vast majority of the boards will have revenues that were not expended because of the two weeks of the illegal strike and that those expenditures will indeed cover the costs of the $40 which will be paid to parents who have been inconvenienced and incurred extra costs up to $40 where they are eligible. In those cases, and there may be some small boards, particularly boards that focus more on the elementary than on elementary and secondary, and if indeed those boards have incurred additional costs through the payment to parents who have had to incur expenditures beyond what the revenues have diminished as a result of the two weeks of the illegal strike, then yes indeed, the province of Ontario will ensure that those boards are not out money.

1510

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, which I know will be of particular interest to page Sandra Lamon from Wawa. It's in regard to the very grave situation facing the community of Wawa as a result of the announcement last night by the Algoma Steel board of directors that there would be a complete cessation of the Algoma Ore division, mining operation and sintering operation in June 1998, affecting 220 employees and the whole economy of Wawa.

Algoma Steel stated that it is "committed to working with the community of Wawa and the provincial and federal governments in determining ways in which the community can be assisted in dealing with the impact of the closure."

I know the assistant deputy minister of northern development and mines is going to Wawa on Wednesday. Will he be there to announce that this government is prepared to participate in providing financial assistance for community adjustment for the people of Wawa and the community of Wawa?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. He and I have talked about this before, and he knows that we on the government side share his concern and heartfelt empathy with the community of Wawa. These situations are never easy. It's regrettable. This announcement, as he knows, was not unexpected; nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less painful for the people of Wawa.

As he mentioned, our assistant deputy minister will be there on Wednesday. I will be speaking with the president of Algoma Steel after question period today. We will be working with the community to see what can be done in the future.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the minister's response and the fact that the assistant deputy will be Wawa. I would hope that the minister will join with the company and the community in providing financial assistance for dealing with the impact and in persuading the federal government to participate financially as well.

I appreciate the minister's response and anticipate that he's rejecting the position taken by Tom Long in June 1993, when he was quoted as saying, "The fates of struggling companies, each of which employ thousands of people, should be determined by market forces." Are we going to assist the community to respond to the market forces and to provide impact adjustment for the whole community, the business community and all the residents of Wawa?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned to the member for the third party, I share his concern for the community of Wawa and the members of his riding. We've talked about this in the past. We will work with the community and with Algoma Steel. I'm not about to commit to some announcement right here. I think it's best that we work with the community involved and see what's appropriate. I appreciate the question.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Mr Speaker, as you and the members opposite are well aware, the phrase "Think globally, act locally" is now more important than ever in the environment.

For the next two weeks, politicians from all over the world will be gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to discuss climate change. Minister, I understand that you will be attending this conference. My Eglinton constituents are very interested in the environment and Ontario's thoughts concerning climate change. Therefore, would you tell us about Ontario's position that you will be bringing to Kyoto in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): This is an extremely important subject and it has a very important environmental and economic effect on the province of Ontario. Last month, when I was in Regina, I met with other provincial environment ministers from across Canada. At that meeting there was agreement that we would stabilize our 1990 emissions by the year 2010, and there was a recognition as well by those provincial ministers that more had to be done than just stabilizing.

Presently the federal government has put forward a position that calls for a 3% reduction of 1990 emissions by 2010 and an additional 5% reduction by 2015.

When one relates these to economics, each per cent refers to about 75,000 jobs lost in your economy. Therefore, it is a difficult balance between our economic interests and our environmental interests when we are dealing in -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Saunderson: Minister, just what has the United States proposed in terms of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions? Can you please state Ontario's position with regard to our largest trading partner to the south?

Hon Mr Sterling: The goals and the agreement of the United States are very important because our economies are so closely linked with each other. The United States has proposed stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels during the period 2008-12. I believe that Ontario and Canada must be very much in sync with where the United States will go in this particular conference.

I do not believe we can afford to lose a huge number of jobs when our overall effect on global emissions is somewhat small. We are willing, however, to step out and take our fair share of the pain that would be required with regard to reducing these emissions.

I will be working with the Canadian delegation to put forward their position in the strongest possible way. We understand that this is a serious problem and Ontario is willing to step up to the plate to make its contribution.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Culture. The people of Ontario are very concerned about your government's threat to privatize TVOntario, our province's enormously successful, commercial-free, educational television network.

At public hearings that have just wound up across the province - far too few hearings, I might add - the support for TVO to remain publicly owned and operated has been overwhelming: almost 100% support for maintaining the network as it is. Many other people, prominent and otherwise, who believe that TVOntario is a cultural and educational institution that must be protected have spoken out in support of TVOntario, with one conspicuous exception, Minister, and that is you.

The people need to know if you, as the minister responsible for TVO and as the hoped-for advocate for culture in this province, will fight for TVO at the cabinet table. My question is this: Minister, do you support the privatization of TVOntario?

Applause.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): This is a question, as you know, for the minister responsible for privatization.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I can't hear you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Had we known that the minister was going to refer the question - we withdraw our applause.

The Speaker: I didn't even hear the minister, to be quite honest. Minister of Culture.

Hon Ms Bassett: Mr Speaker, I referred the question to the minister for privatization, whose area it belongs in now.

Interjections.

1520

The Speaker: Minister responsible for privatization.

Applause.

The Speaker: It's coming off your time.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you to the minister as well. I'm sure the House will accord her a full round of applause next time she takes a full question.

To the member opposite, he is well aware of the fact that we are reviewing a number of government businesses through the privatization secretariat. One of them is indeed TVO. As part of the consultation process that we have implemented, we have elected to engage a group of experts to go around the province and to get some opinions from Ontarians, because we believe Ontarians have a role to play in the assessment of the government businesses we're looking at. That's what we've put in place for the consultation round that was referred to by the member across the floor, and I'm quite pleased in fact that Ontarians were able to attend there and express their opinions on what they saw was important for TVO.

Mr Gravelle: I think it's shameful that the Minister of Culture will not speak on behalf of TVOntario - she is the minister responsible - and simply answer the question directly. It's quite shameful, it really is. I'm very disappointed.

May I direct my supplementary back to the minister, Speaker. Minister, if I may direct it back to you, I've had the benefit of attending most of the public hearings held across the province, including one in my home town of Thunder Bay, and people at the hearings have expressed grave concern that this public hearing process would not be listened to by you or your colleague, the minister of privatization. In effect, the integrity of this consultation process is very much in question unless you can guarantee that this consultation, short, hurried and underpublicized as it was, is taken seriously.

Minister, the people of Ontario who attended these hearings and the millions of TVOntario weekly viewers demand your support in at least two areas: First, will you guarantee that the community forum panel's report is made public by Minister Sampson immediately upon receipt, and will you fight to ensure that the people's voice, as expressed in that report, is the voice that counts?

Hon Mr Sampson: Again, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to answer the question of the member across the floor. The consultation process that he was referring to is just part of the consultation process that we initiated for TVO. The member of course may not be aware of this, but if he would research the issue a little further he would find out that members of the secretariat have spoken to the regional councils that represent TVO viewers and members regionally as well. They spoke extensively with those groups.

As it relates to the community meetings that were had, I'm quite pleased that they were well attended and we had an opportunity to hear from Ontarians in select groups what they thought was important in TVO and what they would like to see the future of TVO look like. We definitely intend to listen to that because, as I said to the member across the floor, we think Ontarians have a role to play and we are going to listen to what they have to say.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. As the minister knows, student assessment and testing has value; it has value to parents, who, along with report cards, will be able to understand the progress of their students, their children in school. It's of value to teachers to help them to evaluate those students. But when it comes to the school-by-school reporting, the Education Quality and Accountability Office has done a great disservice to Ontario's students, teachers and parents by including students who were exempt from or absent from the exam in the calculation of the results.

Take, for example, Bowmore Road public school in east-end Toronto: 21% of the grade 3 students in that school were exempted from the test, and for 2% there were no data.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Wildman: Here is how the test results were affected: Of the students at this school who wrote the grade 3 test, 92% achieved level 2, 3 or 4, but when you measure the outcome in relation to all grade 3 students at the school, including those who did not take the test, the result is only 71%. That's a 21-point spread.

How can you assure the accountability of this school system when you use these kinds of reporting methods -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): My friend the House leader for the third party and I may agree on this one. I think the Education Quality and Accountability Office has done a great service in general through this testing. I hope and I believe and I think I've heard the members opposite say that, yes, they support the testing as well.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: I am seeing that confirmed here at this point in time. In general, I think the testing for the grade 3s and the grade 6s has been of service.

I must say that it is coming to my attention that various students who were exempted, somehow in a calculation of some average numbers, were included as if their score were zero, in a sense. That's not anything, obviously, that the government has done, but the EQAO apparently may have made this kind of calculation.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: I can assure you that I fully intend to talk to the EQAO about this, because I would have a hard time saying it may not be a little misleading in that regard.

I assure the member that I will bring this to the attention at the earliest opportunity -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: This was raised last week, as the minister knows, so I would have hoped he had acted quickly on this. He surely can't use these figures, as the government has done - he certainly can't use them as a benchmark.

Considering the fact that the Toronto Board of Education overall showed 74% of the grade 3 students achieving level 2 or higher in reading, 73% in writing and 77% in mathematics, but that when the exempted or absent students are taken out of the average, 88% of the grade 3 students achieved level 2 or higher in these three tests, will the minister request the EQAO to issue new results, taking those students who were given a zero out of the results so that we actually have an accurate benchmark and so parents will really know how their students are doing?

Hon David Johnson: Be assured that I will bring this matter at the earliest opportunity to the attention of the EQAO and ask that they reconsider how they may publish this sort of information in the future.

The information does cast some interpretation, let's say, on the results school by school, but not student by student. The actual fact is that a level 3 is what is being expected of our students. A level 3 would correspond roughly, in general terms, to about 70%, I guess is how we would have thought about it in former terms, 70% or higher.

The reality, any way you spin it, is that our students are not being given the opportunity to achieve the results, a level 3 or higher, in mathematics, in science and in the other courses. This is of grave concern to the government. I think that's the major note in this, that our students should be given the opportunity to achieve.

1530

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In 1995 the people of Perth county put their faith in me to deliver on a promise that the Conservative Party would restore jobs, hope, growth and opportunity. They have watched anxiously over the last two years as we have followed through on this promise and they have looked optimistically towards the future.

Each day we are seeing more jobs being created, yet there is still a sense of apprehension. The latest figures from Statistics Canada would seem to indicate that youth unemployment remains high. In total, nearly 17% of Ontario's youth are unemployed and actively seeking employment. This is not acceptable.

With the launch of our government's new $30-million rural jobs strategy fund, we have a tremendous opportunity to develop local initiatives that will create employment opportunities for our for our youth.

What strategy has the minister developed to address the problem of high unemployment among the youth in rural Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Perth for that question, because this government and this ministry have been very active. The rural job strategy fund -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: - and I'm pleased to hear from my colleagues across the way - is a $30-million fund. We were out and consulting. We consulted with the rural -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Isn't it amazing how the opposition has trouble accepting good news? It's absolutely terrible.

We are consulting with the rural community, the young people in the rural community. I want to commend my parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for Bruce, Barb Fisher, who is here today, who listened very closely to the rural community as they suggested what would be best for them. We are now putting into place, based on those consultations, oriented towards keeping our young people where they were born, raised and educated -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bert Johnson: Previous governments have told the people of Ontario what they needed. This government is asking the people first, and we are seeing the results.

In an effort to increase the opportunities for youth, I understand that $3 million of the rural job strategy fund has already been invested through the summer jobs program for rural youth. I'd like to know if this program was a success and what its implementation will mean for youth in rural Ontario.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We were quite successful. Actually, we targeted some 3,000 students for summer employment. The good news is that 4,300 young people found employment, partially through the support that was provided through the summer jobs creation project.

Rural Ontario has a great deal to offer through the upcoming consultations on young people. I want to commend Laura Perrin from Oxford county, who won our poster contest and indeed illustrated the importance of the agrifood sector and the rural community.

This $30 million - and somehow or other the opposition seems to think it's not very much money.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It's not.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Well, it's $30 million more than they had, and we've put it into rural jobs.

By cutting red tape and creating an atmosphere that is conducive for business, this government will create jobs in rural Ontario.

Mr Pouliot: Lies. You cut 30 million bucks.

The Speaker: You must withdraw that comment.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You had a chance to be fair with your Fair Municipal Finance Act, but apparently you decided not to be fair, because as a result of the passage today of Bill 149, there are 10 vulnerable women who are condemned to be removed from their home. Daybreak, which is a charitable organization leasing property from a church, another charitable organization, in spite of its charitable status has been assessed property taxes because it's leasing from a church. The shelter is faced with a $36,000 tax bill. It will have to close its doors if it's forced to pay. It would then fall to the government to pay for taking care of these women. I'll ask you, are you still in favour of taxing charities, and are you prepared to see these 10 women put out on the street?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member opposite for the question. I obviously am not aware of the specifics of this particular situation he has brought up. If he would like to send it over, I'd be more than glad to look at it and get back to him.

However, I would like to say that the taxation changes we're bringing in, the assessment changes, are going to bring fairness and equity right across this province. I think everybody recognizes that the assessment and tax system in this province has been fractured and broken for many, many years. It's about time that some government stepped in and brought back the fairness and equity aspects to it. Obviously, there are going to be situations that arise that will have to be addressed. This may be one of them, and we would be very glad to look at that if he wants to send it across. But again I have to say that the assessment changes in this province will bring fairness to a system that hasn't been there for many years.

Mr Patten: I would like to point out that you have in this case your ministry and finance undercutting an organization that is being supported for vulnerable women by community and social services. This particular organization was created by seven Centretown churches. They are a charitable organization. All the staff is underpaid - very dedicated, highly gifted, caring people working with vulnerable women who need support. You know what the waiting lists are like.

There's nowhere else for these women to go. If this goes through, they will be forced to close their doors at the end of the year. Will you please do something to ensure that they have a home come New Year's Day?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, I'm not aware of the details of this situation. I will look into it and get back to him. I know there are many dedicated organizations that provide excellent service to people in need and this sounds as if it's one of them. But again I want to assure the House and assure the members and the people of this province that this government is addressing a very unfair assessment system that should have been addressed and fixed many years ago. This is going to bring fairness and equity to hundreds of thousands of people who are presently being unfairly taxed. We are going to correct that.

PETITIONS

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

M. Richard Patten (Ottawa-Centre) : J'ai une pétition pour l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que nous, les signataires de cette pétition, voulons signifier au gouvernement notre opposition au projet de loi 160 ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 exclut les parents et les enseignants du processus de décision -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Just a minute. We'll just wait until the House is cleared.

M. Patten : «Attendu que le projet de loi 160 exclut les parents et les enseignants du processus de décision dans le secteur de l'éducation en Ontario ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 centralise tous les pouvoirs entre les mains du gouvernement ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 accorde au gouvernement Harris le pouvoir de retrancher 660 $ millions de plus du secteur de l'éducation ;

«Nous, les soussignataires, demandons que l'adoption du projet de loi 160 soit remise et que le gouvernement entreprenne des consultations véritables et franches avec tous les groupes concernés.»

J'appuie cette pétition.

1540

ARREST OF PROTESTORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition signed by about 250 people. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, wish to protest against the treatment of the seven women who were arrested about 5:30 during the peaceful protest against Bill 160 outside the Holiday Inn in Guelph on Tuesday, November 18.

"The seven women were strip-searched and held in a maximum security detention centre until 12:30 am without being charged. This kind of treatment betrays the negotiations between the teachers and the Guelph Police Department prior to the peaceful demonstration.

"Besides being personally humiliated and sexually intimidated by being strip-searched, the women were put in a place that even one of the police officers recognized was dangerous. This became obvious when he warned the women that they must be silent because they were in a maximum security facility where there were men who were murderers and rapists.

"We protest against these fear-arousing tactics, which appear to be designed to deprive people of their civil rights and deny the democratic rights of people to hold a peaceful protest. We respectfully demand a public apology from the police department, where the decision was made to place the women in maximum security. We certainly expect an assurance that such treatment will not happen again.

"Since this happened at a political rally, it would also be appropriate for the Legislature to also offer an apology and an assurance that such treatment will not be tolerated."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 118 people:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public with respect to Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government,

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

CHARITY CASINOS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to Premier Mike Harris, Minister William Saunderson and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Mike Harris during the 1995 election promised voters he would not allow any more casinos without holding a community referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario has designated the Beaches community as one of 36 new permanent charity casino sites without holding a referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris says these permanent casinos are simply replacing roving charity casinos;

"Whereas roving charity casinos can only be set up for a maximum of three days, can't stay open all night, have no more than 30 tables and take a maximum bet of $10. On the other hand, the new casinos are permanent, operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with 40 tables, 150 video slot machines, and maximum bets of $100;

"Whereas Mike Harris dismisses concerns, saying the total number of gaming days in Toronto won't change;

"Whereas the nature of gambling will change dramatically with the introduction of the highly addictive video slot machines and much higher dollar volume operations, it being evident by the government's estimate that the new permanent casinos will see about $1 billion a year wagered;

"Whereas Mike Harris says the new permanent casinos will be safer and more accountable;

"Whereas at the Windsor casino extra law enforcement resources were provided by the province and the Harris government has made no such commitment for the new casino in the Beaches;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease any bids for the Beaches casino site, to fully consult with the community and not to force a casino site on the community against its wishes."

I have proudly affixed my signature.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned believes the current Young Offenders Act should be amended;

"The amendment should include a provision for stronger sentencing for offences like murder, robbery, rape and assault; and

"Whereas a clause should also be included to provide police with the necessary manpower to arrest anyone under the age of 18 years for violating current municipal curfew bylaws after 11 pm;

"The community of Etobicoke strongly believe that such a revision in the Young Offenders Act will keep minors from ever being involved in such serious criminal activity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act so as to toughen sentencing for the most serious offences and to provide the police with the necessary manpower to arrest anyone under the age of 18 years for violating current municipal curfew bylaws after 11 pm;

"We also believe parents should be fined $100 for repeat offences of the curfew bylaws."

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, will do irreparable harm to Ontario's elementary and secondary schools; and

"Whereas Bill 160 centralizes control over education in Ontario in the hands of the provincial government; and

"Whereas the input of students, teachers and parents is crucial to maintaining and improving the quality of Ontario schools; and

"Whereas the provincial government of Ontario has confirmed its plans to cut further funding from education in Ontario; and

"Whereas students have demonstrated their opposition to the direction taken by the government in Ontario in regard to the education policy;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt passage of the Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, and to maintain or increase funding to Ontario's elementary and secondary schools."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

M^me Shelley Martel (Sudbury-Est) : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que Mike Harris et John Snobelen avaient promis de ne pas apporter des coupures dans l'éducation au niveau de la salle de classe, et que depuis leur élection, le gouvernement Harris a sabré plus de 430 $ millions dans les budgets des conseils scolaires, ce qui représente près d'un milliard de dollars supprimé du secteur de l'éducation publique sur une base annuelle ; et

«Attendu que nos enfants ont déjà perdu 50 % du financement accordé à l'éducation spéciale, ainsi que les bibliothécaires et, dans certaines régions, les maternelles, et que de nombreuses écoles ont perdu leurs programmes de musique, et que le nombre d'élèves dans chaque classe a augmenté sensiblement - certaines écoles vont même perdre leurs autobus scolaires ; et

«Attendu que les parents à l'échelle de l'Ontario savent que la majorité des changements apportés au secteur de l'éducation ont pour but de supprimer un milliard de dollars des dépenses du gouvernement pour financer sa réduction d'impôts ; et

«Attendu que les parents savent que ces coupures affectent l'éducation dans les salles de classe et la qualité de l'éducation de leurs enfants ; et

«Attendu que les parents savent qu'ils n'ont pas été consultés ;

«Nous, soussignés, exhortons Mike Harris à cesser ces coupures qui affectent l'éducation et l'avenir de nos enfants.»

Cette pétition est signée par 12 électeurs dans la circonscription de Sudbury-Est, et je suis en accord avec eux.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Waterloo North, who of course is precluded from presenting petitions in this House. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, illness or injury and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is in the best interests of the public to have open market competition among professional accountants; and

"Whereas, under the Public Accountancy Act, only chartered accountants have full access to public accounting licences in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario restricts certified general accountants more than any other province, with the exception of Prince Edward Island; and

"Whereas certified general accountants, whose training is identical to that of certified general accountants in the province of Ontario, have a statutory right to practise public accounting in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, are free to practise in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, can be licensed to practise in Nova Scotia and have considerable public accountancy rights in the province of Quebec; and

"Whereas this has created a monopoly in the province of Ontario since 1962 that is not only unfair to the public but also results in additional expenses, particularly to small business owners; and

"Whereas the monopoly results in NAFTA inequalities for certified general accountants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas according full professional rights to certified general accountants would lower costs to business by creating competition in accounting and auditing services, which is consistent with the current government's initiative to introduce measures designed to reduce government interference in the private and business lives of Ontario residents; and

"Whereas certified general accountants in the province of Ontario are qualified professionals whose governing body delivers a rigorous and demanding program of professional studies, examines for professional competency, requires practical experience to qualify individuals as certified general accountants, has an established code of ethics and rules of professional conduct and an accompanying disciplinary process to ensure that the standards of the profession are maintained and that the interests of the public are protected; and

"Whereas the Professional Organizations Committee rejected the notion of a monopoly over licensed practices for chartered accountants and specifically supported and recommended the extension of public accounting licences to certified general accountants with experience in the field of public accounting;

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to grant the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario their request for overdue amendments to the Public Accountancy Act to allow certified general accountants full access to public practice licences and to eliminate the present monopoly."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by approximately 50 people from the London area.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I am pleased to sign this petition.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition presented to me by John and Claire Callender of Nepean, with 140 signatures, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the volume of traffic travelling along the Queensway between Highway 416 and Moodie Drive has grown steadily in recent years due to population and industrial growth of Kanata, the addition of a third lane to Moodie Drive, the recent expansions of both Nortel and Newbridge, the evolution of the Corel Centre into the home of the Ottawa Senators and Ottawa's premier entertainment arena, and the opening of Highway 416 as a primary route connecting Ottawa to Highway 401; and

"Whereas this increased volume of traffic is producing levels of noise which are disturbing local residents both during the day and the night;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to develop the roadways along this section of the Queensway in order to accommodate the increased volumes of traffic, but to couple this development with measures, including the extension of a berm along the north side of the Queensway in the Crystal Beach area to mitigate the negative aspects caused by this traffic."

Because I'm in complete agreement, I have signed my own name thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 161, An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi favorisant le traitement équitable des parents et des employés en prévoyant des recours à la suite du retrait de services par les enseignants à l'échelle de la province entre le 27 octobre et le 7 novembre 1997 et apportant une modification complémentaire à la Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 2, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Flaherty has moved second reading of Bill 161. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1555 to 1600.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Members take their seats. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Colle, Mike

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

McLeod, Lyn

Phillips, Gerry

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 9.

The Deputy Speaker: The motion carries.

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

Mr Flaherty moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 161, An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi favorisant le traitement équitable des parents et des employés en prévoyant des recours à la suite du retrait de services par les enseignants à l'échelle de la province entre le 27 octobre et le 7 novembre 1997 et apportant une modification complémentaire à la Loi sur l'éducation.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Speaker: I believe there has been three-party agreement to split the time available on the clock for third reading.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Could I ask the members to please have their meetings outside or take their seats. The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It will be interesting to see the Hansard, because apparently my wife voted before I did today in the Legislature. She'll find that interesting.

It pleases me to stand today and talk about third reading of Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. As many people throughout Ontario know already, this act does three things: It gives a payment to parents for their inconvenience suffered during the recent illegal teachers' strike; it provides protection for employees against any discipline by employers if those parents of children affected by the strike needed to miss work or needed to be late for work, and it also protects teachers from union reprisals if those teachers, of their own conscience, decided to go to work that day or didn't do something which their union leaders had asked them to do. I think it's a very important bill.

The vote we just had was very interesting, because I saw in the Thunder Bay Chronicle just November 26 that they had interviewed the member from Thunder Bay:

"McLeod said Tuesday she doesn't begrudge the rebate, just its timing. The province hinted at a rebate during the strike.

"`It was a way of saying to parents: "Don't worry, we'll compensate you for any inconvenience or cost."'"

Yes, it is. I was surprised that after saying she didn't begrudge the rebate, this afternoon she voted against this bill.

I think I should say now, before I forget, that I will be trying to split my time, my 40 minutes, with Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, and the member for Sarnia, Mr Boushy.

In speaking to the bill, in the first stage of the bill, the first thing the bill does is provide for payment to parents or guardians. As most people know, this bill will provide for a payment of up to $40 per family for each day that an eligible child was unable to attend school because of the strike. This means a maximum of $400 for families whose children could not go to school for the full 10-day period of the strike. The section would also apply if children were unable to attend school because transportation, for example a school bus, was not available or if special education programs or services for special needs children were not available, and if children did not attend school because, in the parents' opinion, they would not have been safely supervised at a school or school-based child care centre or nursery school.

The payment is available to affected parents and guardians, including those mothers and fathers who would normally stay at home, those who had to enlist relatives to help them, and parents who are themselves students in colleges or enrolled in training courses but were forced to miss classes during the strike in order to look after their children.

For the purposes of this legislation, "eligible child" refers to - folks should know this - school children 13 years of age or younger, children in child care facilities or day nurseries located in schools that were closed due to the teachers' action or special needs students in secondary schools.

The money for these payments, folks at home also should know, would come from the savings school boards have accumulated as a result of not having to pay striking teachers who did not go to work. Under Bill 161, the school boards will have the following responsibilities: identifying the appropriate school days, determining if students were prevented from attending classes because of the strike and administering the payment to eligible households. School boards will be responsible for ensuring that parents receive payment. I urge all members to support speedy passage of this bill so that parents and guardians can immediately apply for payment through their children's schools and school boards.

During the debate we have had up to now on this, some of the members on the opposite side of the aisle have complained that no receipts are being asked of parents when they're going to get these payments. I have said on one occasion, and I'll state again today that the government trusts parents to file for the compensation that they rightly deserve. That's the number one thing.

The number two thing is in many cases people may have incurred costs that they wouldn't have receipts for. As I have said in the House before, perhaps someone would drive a good distance to drop their kids off at a grandparent's house or something to that effect. Obviously the grandparent wouldn't be giving a bill to the parent for looking after the children, or the parent wouldn't have a receipt for those kilometres driven and so on and so forth. It will become a bureaucratic nightmare. So we've decided this would be an entitlement.

Last, I think it should be noted that within the bill it is an offence to try to file for more than a parent is eligible to receive.

1610

As I said, I was surprised that the member for Thunder Bay and nine of the Liberal members who were here to vote voted against this bill as they have said in the past that they were actually in favour of the idea of this rebate. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me because if you look at the history of the party, look back at their red book and look at how they voted on other items in this House, you can see there is actually quite a consistency of voting against things that they actually ran on a platform of doing.

For instance, the creation of a College of Teachers was something they had in there which we have done. We've heard a lot of complaints on that side of the aisle about standardized testing, which they called for. Even though now we've brought standardized testing in, we've heard several complaints.

If I read right from the red book, I see that they said, "We must make sure that we are getting value for our dollar." Well, that's exactly what this government has been saying we're trying to do within the education system. "As much as possible, our education dollars must be spent on classroom learning rather than administration." Again, we agree with that. That's something we've tried to achieve up to now and we think Bill 160 will help us achieve further.

Some other things they said in the red book: "The creation of a provincial core curriculum will help save money by eliminating the need for individual boards of education to develop their own core curriculums." Agreed and done. "So too will the establishment of local school councils, which will help shift decision-making out of the hands of bureaucracies and into the hands of parents." Again, in 160 we have put these school councils in legislation, so something they called for we have actually put in this bill.

I continue reading from the red book and what they asked for: "A Liberal government will further cut spending on administration and get rid of waste and duplication." How would they do that? "By reducing the number of trustees, placing a cap on the salaries of trustees, and recognizing the part-time nature of the job." Done, again, on this side of the aisle.

How else would they do that? The Liberals said they would do it by "clearly defining the role of school boards, publishing guidelines for spending on administration, and asking boards to publish an annual `report card' comparing their administrative spending with provincial guidelines." Well, that's also going to be done through the new funding formula and through Bill 160, where we will now have one form of reporting. People won't use different definitions throughout the province; boards won't use different definitions of what's administration and what's not. So again something asked for in the Liberal red book has been done on this side of the aisle.

Finally, the Liberals said in their red book that they would reduce spending in education by "encouraging school boards to increase efficiency and reduce costs by sharing expenses and looking for opportunities to share services with other public sector institutions." Again, we had already started that process and that's going to be enhanced with Bill 160.

Yesterday when we talked about the time allocation motion in this House, my friend the member for St Catharines went on at length about a situation - he read from an article in the Globe - where he felt that some unelected members, staff people to all intents and purposes, of this government had too much authority. I didn't have a chance then to respond to him, but I would say that I can understand why he's so sensitive to this issue.

If one goes back and looks, there is one particularly good book out there called Not Without Cause: David Peterson's Fall From Grace, by Georgette Gagnon and Dan Rath. If one goes back and reads that book and looks at the history, one will find that Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, as the environment minister several times had difficulties with the staff in the Liberal Party overruling him and other ministers. Vince Borg, Gord Ashworth and Hershell Ezrin were three of the people who were - I guess Mr Bradley would refer to them as whiz kids in his day.

On a particular page, page 79, you read, if I can quote, "Discontent...crystallized around the Liberals' apparent support for land development at the expense of the environment." A paper came out, "a discussion paper entitled Reforming Our Land Use and Development System that seemed to put development ahead of the environment by cutting Bradley's power.... The paper was written without Bradley's knowledge or his ministry's involvement."

So if one reads the history, I understand the member for St Catharines' sensitivity to the role of staff because of some of the experiences he may have had when he was in government. But I can assure him that on this side of the aisle staff provide a service to ministers and to the Premier, but it's not one of telling any members how to vote or actually writing policy.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, can you check and see if there's a quorum?

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Maves: As I was saying, the connection to all of this that the member for St Catharines made yesterday when I asked him to make a point back to 161 was that in his opinion this bill wasn't written by ministers or members on this side of aisle. I want to assure him that on this side of the aisle policy is made and policy direction is given from the ministers and from caucus members and not the other way around, from staff, and staff act on that. In his day it may have been different, as this book seems to indicate.

One of the other things I found interesting when I read through this book was - the member for St Catharines is very pessimistic about the future of education. He's not happy with 161, he's not happy with 160. I read again on page 103 of this book where it says, back in the days of 1987 and 1990, "Bradley's peers were accustomed to his pessimism." We on this side of the aisle have become accustomed to that same pessimism. "Colleagues respected Bradley's political nose but saw him as a perpetual prophet of doom."

That really rings true in this House from things we hear from the member for St Catharines. One quote here is: "`You give him a story, he can tell you everything that's going to go wrong, everything, because he's paranoid,' said one minister. Chaviva Ho_ek likened him to `the canaries that they used to take down in the mines: when they stopped breathing, you'd know you were dead.'"

I think people at home should understand that the member for St Catharines, an honourable member he is, but he does have a history even among his own party members of being somewhat pessimistic and having a somewhat pessimistic outlook.

We on this side of the aisle have a much more optimistic outlook and believe that the changes we're bringing to education in Ontario through Bill 160 and the things we're doing in Bill 161 are going to have a very positive impact on the education system and on parents who suffered during the strike. I hope the member for St Catharines hasn't soured too many people by that attitude. They should know, and I thought I would mention, that there is that history there of that little bit of a pessimistic attitude. I know he's very optimistic about his Buffalo Sabres, as I am too, and we chat about that quite often, but about other things political he can sometimes be quite pessimistic.

I really should shorten my comments on 161 because I know, as I said, the member for Dufferin-Peel is going to speak today also, and the member for Sarnia, and I want to leave them some time.

The bill, as I said, has three very important components: the payment to the parents for the inconvenience they've suffered, the $40 a day, as it has become known as; the protection for employees against discipline by employers if they had to miss work; and the prohibition for teachers' unions to have reprisals against members who didn't follow their dictates. I think that's essential. I had several teachers call me during that period of time with many concerns about post-strike activity, and I think they'll be much more confident going back to work now, on the passage of Bill 161. I'm going to support the bill, and I encourage the rest of the members of the House to do the same.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? If I could just clarify, because we've agreed in the House to share the time, split it three ways, we will rotate. There will be no questions and comments, and we will rotate.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I will also be dividing my time with my colleague the member for Oriole.

I'm pleased to be rising to speak in this debate. Having just had second reading of this bill, we will of course have a very limited period of debate on third reading, with a third reading vote to be called this afternoon.

I'm not surprised that the government has time-allocated yet another bill. We're seeing this government use time allocation more than any other government in history. I'm not surprised they have limited the time on Bill 161, because I recognize the fact that we have actually had, or will have had by the time we vote this evening, as much time debating what should be a relatively simple bill - in theory it should be a simple bill - as we had to debate the entire omnibus Bill 160, which brought in such sweeping, fundamental changes to Ontario's education system.

I am still concerned about the time allocation motion on Bill 161 which this government forced through yesterday, because even this relatively simple bill requires some amendment, leaves some unanswered questions. As the members of the third party, along with ourselves, argued yesterday, it would have been appropriate to have seen this bill go to committee for clause-by-clause consideration, for some further discussion of the areas in which there is, to say the least, a lack of clarity. But that doesn't serve the government's purposes, so indeed we have second reading today. We have no committee and there is no chance to resolve the unanswered questions or to propose amendments, which I know the third party was anxious to propose. We'll be forced into making a decision on this bill on third reading this afternoon.

This government clearly is not a fan of committee hearings or clause-by-clause consideration in any event. I only need to refer back to the process by which we considered Bill 160, the omnibus bill, for evidence of that. Bill 160, of course, was essentially cut off in the clause-by-clause hearings, cut off at a point when most of the bill was not even considered, and at which the government's own amendments to that bill were voted on, as were the opposition amendments, without even being read because we had reached the magic hour of 5 o'clock. Following the magic hour of 5 o'clock there had to be a simple vote without any reading of the amendments.

The government needs to rethink the way in which it forces through its bills with limited time, because the government itself was in a bind on Bill 160. They were in a bind to put together their own amendments, because their own amendments came in late. In fact, their amendments came in late enough that four of their amendments could not be considered and had to be withdrawn. At some future point in time, we're undoubtedly going to see new legislation that brings forward the amendments the government knew it needed to fix the mistakes it had already made in Bill 160.

We know their amendments were presented in such a way that in one case there was one page of an amendment on an important issue of education development charges and the second page of the amendment was missing. The government tried to introduce it in the committee stage but got caught in their own time allocation motion. That very important amendment on education development charges was not able to proceed, which is why the Urban Development Institute, in commenting on Bill 160, says, "Recent events have caused our organization to join the chorus of those saying that this bill lacks proper consultation, has been hastily drafted and presents a negative impact." That's the nature of what happens to legislation when it is forced through on a time allocation motion without due process for consideration in committee.

That again is happening on this seemingly much simpler bill, Bill 161. There are parts of Bill 161 that I will tell you quite openly we can agree with. In fact, there are parts of Bill 161 that we wish could be separated out from the bill itself so that we could provide our clear and unequivocal support, and that is for at least the concept of families receiving compensation for any child care expenses or out-of-pocket expenses they incurred during the period of time that teachers were out of the classroom and students clearly were out of the classroom. That's a part of the bill with which we can agree conceptually.

If we had had more time on this bill, if the government had been more forthcoming, if there had been an opportunity to discuss this bill in committee, we might have been able to find out answers to some of the unanswered questions, however, about even the concept of paying families for their child care or out-of-pocket expenses. Unfortunately, we're not going to have that opportunity.

If we had had an opportunity for some discussion in committee, we might have found out the government's rationale for presenting a bill that puts forward a concept which we are in agreement with, a concept of compensating families for out-of-pocket or child care expenses, and why the government that puts forward legislation with that concept embodied in it is not sufficiently committed to the idea to suggest that it continue when there are future disruptions in educational service to students. It's quite clear the government has no intention of extending this concept to other strike situations. In fact, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the government has said that those families in York region who in the second week of the teacher protest were actually caught up in a legal strike will not receive compensation for the period of time in which their teachers were on a legal strike.

I suggest to you that if a government really believes in the principle of extending compensation to families for out-of-pocket expenses incurred when the services to their children are disrupted, then that same government would not limit this bill in such a way that those families in York region whose children were out of school for the full two weeks will only get compensation for a one-week period. That's a part of the bill we disagree with.

A further part of the bill that we disagree with is that it is absolutely clear that this same kind of compensation will not again be extended to families whose educational service for children is disrupted. That raises another concern we have with the bill. In the past, if there was a disruption in teachers' services through a strike or lockout and the salaries were therefore saved for the period of time of that disruption of service, the dollars the board saved in such a situation were to be put into a reserve fund, and at the end of the year those funds would be returned to the local taxpayer.

What does Bill 161 say will happen in any future disruption-of-service situation? It says that the money saved will go into a reserve fund, but that's the end of the legislation. No longer is there a requirement for the government to return that money to the local taxpayer now that the government controls the dollars.

The whole idea was that if local services are lost, the local taxpayer should be compensated. The government could do that. They're still raising $6 billion from the local taxpayers for educational purposes. They could return those dollars saved with the disruption of service to the local taxpayer, but they're not going to, because the government wants to get hold of the money. They are not going to return it to families, as they are doing to compensate for the out-of-pocket expenses families incurred during the teachers' protest. They're not going to extend that same compensation to families in any future situation. The government is simply going to keep that money for itself.

Even as we support the concept of families receiving compensation, we can call on this government to amend their own legislation so that the same principle is carried forward in future situations rather than restricting it simply to the public relations statement that this government felt the need to make at the very outset of the teachers' protest. The sheer hypocrisy of making this statement at the beginning of the teachers' protest and then restricting the application of the principle only to that period of time and not extending the same principle to any future situation is really quite astounding. But then this government always has its eye to where they can get some additional money to put into their reserves so their commitments can be met with something that doesn't interfere with their ability to deliver the tax cut - always an eye to where they can get some dollars.

1630

There's another part of Bill 161 which we do agree with and wish we could separate out, so we could support it. That's the part of Bill 161 which ensures that no employee who was required to take time off work to provide child care meets with any kind of retribution from their employer. As I said during my speech on second reading debate, I think the government itself may have been guilty of at least intimidation, if not outright punishment, of employees who took time off. Perhaps this part of the bill is needed to make sure the government as an employer does not take any retribution against its own employees. That part of the bill we can agree with.

A part of the bill we totally disagree with is the necessity of having a section of this bill to deal with reprisals of teachers against fellow teachers who did not participate in the walkout. That is purely and simply a gratuitous hit at teachers, who have made it very clear from the beginning that there would be no reprisal action taken against colleagues who chose not to support the protest.

If indeed the government didn't trust teachers to act on their word, the government knows full well that any teacher who felt there had been a reprisal taken by colleagues against them would have access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board after January 1 in order to have that addressed.

It is quite amazing that on a bill that is relatively simple, there should still be such a host of unanswered questions. This is also troubling: unanswered questions even about the one part of the bill which we feel is supportable in principle. The unanswered questions -

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Point of order, Madam Speaker: I also have an unanswered question, and that is whether in fact we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Fort William.

Mrs McLeod: I was just saying it seems surprising that in a relatively simple bill there should be such a host of unanswered questions, yet maybe that's not surprising, because we know that the goal of this government was to make a public relations message. They wanted public support for what was going to be a tough stand they were going to take against teachers during this protest.

They didn't want to resolve the issues; they wanted to be able to take a tough stand. They thought they could win by taking on the teachers. They didn't. But they had to take a tough stand in any event, because they needed Bill 160 by January 1 - not simply to deliver the transitional issues related to the amalgamation of school boards but to deliver on a tax cut payment due January 1, and the government needed to take control of educational financing so they could make the kinds of cuts they needed to deliver on that tax cut.

The government was going to take a tough stand; they weren't going to be interested in resolving the concerns or the issues that were being raised by teachers or by parents, so they thought they could buy public acquiescence by offering compensation to families in saying, "Don't worry, we'll help you to recover any lost dollars you may incur as a result of us refusing to deal with the issues that would ensure that teachers could be back in the classrooms and that students could be returning to school."

The Minister of Labour said they did this to reassure parents. I can tell you I have not talked to any parents who were reassured by this government's dealings with either the teacher protest or with Bill 160 itself. I have talked to a lot of parents who said they are not reassured by a $40-a-day payment; that it is in no way going to protect junior kindergarten programs for their children against this government's attack on junior kindergarten; that it is in no way going to protect special education programs for their children as this government's cuts to education force the gutting of all the support services that special needs students need; that it is in no way going to ensure that class sizes will be smaller, as the government would like people to believe, when in fact the government's legislation, Bill 160, enshrines the status quo for class size and means that class sizes will continue to be in some cases as large as 35 or 36 or 40. Parents are not reassured that the $40-a-day payment is going to answer the very real concerns they have about this government's agenda for education or the impact of Bill 160.

It's ironic that even the $40 a day per family is not sufficient to address the real child care expenses that families who incurred expenses would have had to meet, because it is of course not a per child payment; it is a per family payment. It's not at this point directed to child care expenses; it is directed simply as a payment to families who have a child or children 13 years or younger. That can change, because the legislation has a basket clause giving the Minister of Education yet again the power to make any decisions or directives or regulations he chooses in order to implement the intent of this act.

This is exactly why this bill should have gone to committee for further consideration and for further clarification, so that we could determine whether the government is serious about actually compensating families for out-of-pocket expenses and child care expenses or whether this is nothing more than a simple gesture for public relations purposes.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that one of the unanswered questions is how much this is actually going to cost. There are no answers for families as to whether or not it's going to meet child care expenses; clearly it's not, if you have more than one child and you were having to pay for child care expenses for those children. It doesn't answer the families' out-of-pocket expenses concerns. Nor does it answer the question that school boards have about whether or not the payment of that $40 a day is going to be fully recoverable from any savings school boards had as a result of the two-week protest.

This should have been made clear, that the government will cover all administrative costs as well as any costs over and above the savings boards experienced that the boards then have to pay out in keeping the government's commitment to the $40 a day. I raised this question with the Minister of Education in the House today. I think I almost got a, "Yes, the government will cover all the costs of this beyond any savings which the board may have had," but I would have liked to have that clearly established for the record so that school boards could then hold this government accountable, to ensure that the keeping of this government's commitment doesn't come out of budgets that are intended to provide dollars for school supplies or for school maintenance.

It shouldn't surprise me either, I guess, that this government puts forward a bill which is basically a public relations statement, without having worried about how much it is going to cost or how it is actually going to work. We have seen from this government so much cynicism in the way in which they will pursue their fundamental agenda of delivering the tax cut at any cost, and how they will put millions of dollars into a public relations campaign intended to camouflage the real agenda and to attempt to persuade the public to support what they are doing.

The fact that they haven't been able to figure out how this works is not a primary concern for them. The question of what the real cost or the real impact of their legislation will be is something they're going to deal with later, always later, because their primary goal is to deliver the tax cut and to deliver a public relations message that will camouflage the real goals of this government.

1640

As I say, I shouldn't be surprised but I am surprised at how there can be so many unanswered questions about such a simple bill. I found myself looking back and realizing that everything we've been doing in the House this week is a result of the government determined to deliver its tax cut, determined to get control over educational financing in order to make cuts that would allow it to deliver its tax cut, having then to download social services on to communities in order to make up for the revenue the government was going to have to put into education when it took education off the property tax, except of course it found it couldn't take education off the property tax because it couldn't download all the social services it wanted to.

We spent a whole week last January with the government making a public relations statement to try and get a positive message out to cover its real agenda, which was to get control of educational financing to deliver a tax cut. We've spent the rest of the year since last January with the government backtracking and changing and shifting and entangling our property tax situation to the point where it can never be untangled, this week passing at least three bills intended to try and fulfil the poorly thought out public relations statement the government made this last January.

If this government was truly concerned about parents, about students, about families, it might have responded to the very real concerns parents have. If the government had been truly concerned, they would not have been solely interested in making a public relations statement that would allow them to continue to take a tough stand against teachers rather than to resolve the issues. If this government was truly concerned about education this would not have been their sole response to the concerns that were raised not only by 126,000 teachers but by hundreds of thousands of parents subsequent to that.

If this government was truly concerned about good policy, about the kinds of relationships that would allow us to establish a basis for real improvements in our educational system, it would not have focused all of its efforts subsequent to that teacher protest with some of the most vicious attacks that we have seen in the history of Ontario governments, a vicious advertising campaign intended to demean and to demoralize those who opposed it, a vicious attack on the principals and vice-principals who dared to stand up with teachers in opposing this government's agenda, and even a vicious attack, I believe, on parents, perhaps because parents sided in so many cases with the teachers in their concerns for public education in the future or perhaps simply because the government saw a chance to advance its real agenda two more steps in being able to slip in its very dangerous amendments making parent councils less that advisory under the cover of the general anger over this bill.

I wonder what all of this says about the Mike Harris government. I begin by asking where the conscience is of a government that throughout this entire process has been willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of 2.1 million students to achieve a tax cut for our most well-to-do citizens. I wonder what it says about our government that it would hold a workshop on messaging around educational change as our educational system was on the verge of a massive protest that would shut down our schools. That was the theme of a workshop at the Tory convention in London, where Paul Rhodes, the former press secretary to the Premier, told the delegates that Bill 160 was about control, but he said, "Clearly we're not going to talk about that."

I wonder where the sense is of public responsibility in a government that puts its Premier on television on the eve of a crisis, not to reassure the public but to spread his propaganda while the unfairness of what he was spinning further enflamed teachers. How would you describe the integrity and the sense of responsibility of a government that tries to build public support by doing everything it can to convince the public that our educational system is broken?

In its attack on education, in its claims to be wanting to improve the quality of education when in fact its goal is clearly to take dollars and teachers out of the education system, in its claims that it is going to bring about reforms to the education system when clearly you cannot bring about positive change to education when you make enemies of the teachers who are to deliver that educational change, this government has been sending a public message that simply is not based on the realities of what is happening in our classrooms today and what is going to happen as a consequence of this government's attack on education. Parents understand that. That's why we have been flooded with the protests of hundreds of thousands of concerned parents.

I say again, if this government was serious about the wellbeing of students, seriously concerned about the interests of parents and families, it would respond to the very real concerns of parents. This bill, which will be passed today, is not going to answer the concerns that parents have expressed and it is not in any way going to compensate not only for the price that was paid by many families during that two-week protest but for the ongoing price that will be paid by students as this government continues to dismantle the public education system in Ontario.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): It's my understanding that we continue next in rotation. I'll be sharing my time with the member for Welland-Thorold.

I join this debate today and I'd be hard-pressed to say that I'm pleased to be here to participate because that would be completely untrue. I am very concerned about the bill the government has put forward because I see in it a complete contradiction of what the government has done to other citizens in this province, what it has done to kids in other circumstances and what it is trying to do now with respect to parents and kids in a blatant effort to try and do damage control around Bill 160. This is what this bill is all about.

The government has had no end of bad publicity, bad press, hard feelings from the majority of people out there who oppose the government's agenda on education and who oppose Bill 160. What I believe they're trying to do through the bill is some damage control around that in hopes of trying to garner some support from some of those same folks who have said, "We don't like where you're heading and we don't want anything to do with it." But it's the contradictions in a number of places in the bill which has me most concerned. I want to address those today in my remarks.

First, this is a government which has spent much time in the last two years with its spin doctors to talk about accountability and to try and convince the public that it is a government which is interested in accountability, which is going to ensure that we have accountability with respect to the use of taxpayers' money. They have spent no end of time trying to do that, particularly when it comes to social assistance, and I want to begin with that example.

Here is a government that has been quite proud, on more than one occasion, talking about all of the efforts it is making to deal with welfare fraud and to ensure that the public gets value for money when it comes to welfare payments. It's a government that was fully prepared to put in a snitch line so that people could call in on their neighbours if they believed they were abusing the system. It is a government that, through its Ontario Works legislation, has now given itself the power to fingerprint social assistance recipients and categorize them in some fashion by doing that as some form of cheats or people who would abuse the system willingly. It's a government that allowed, for example, the new chair and CEO at the Workers' Compensation Board, over at that institution, to also establish a snitch line so that people could, if they wanted to, report on their neighbours if they believed they were abusing that system.

It's a government that has spent a great deal of money and a great deal of effort and a great deal of time communicating to the public that it is taking every step necessary to ensure we get value for money by undertaking all of these initiatives. The contradiction I see in this bill from a government that is prepared to have snitch lines for welfare recipients, snitch lines for WCB recipients and to give itself the power to fingerprint social assistance recipients is now a government that says, "We can't trust any of those parents, but we're going to trust parents who have children who suffered a destruction," during the political protest, the teachers' political protest, "and we will reimburse those parents," no receipts required, no information necessary, no evidence to be provided that child care was actually needed and actually paid for.

1650

It really makes me sick to think that the government can discriminate in one way against a whole portion of our population with kids by talking about accountability and talking about the need for snitch lines and fingerprinting, and on the other hand can say with respect to this issue, "We trust parents." Well, you know what? If you're good enough to trust these parents, you should be good enough to trust all parents, regardless of whether or not they have to use WCB or have to use FBA. It's not good enough to bring legislation into this House and say: "We're going to compensate people. We trust them. They're not going to have to provide receipts to get their $40 a day. But for other people in our society who receive government money or who have to receive WCB when they get hurt, they're cheats and they're frauds, and we want no end of proof and evidence that they need to receive those payments."

I find it really appalling that the government sets up that kind of division in our society, that the government can trust one set of parents on one hand but not trust other parents on the other hand because they happen to be in receipt of social assistance or WCB. I am really disturbed that the government members would think it's okay to bring forward a bill that allows that kind of division to happen, that emphasizes, that reinforces, that promotes that kind of division. This from a government that claims to be accountable.

The second serious contradiction I see in the legislation is the sudden concern this government has for kids who need child care. All of a sudden, through this legislation, this government proclaims to the rest of us that they have such great concerns around child care and they're going to compensate those parents who needed child care during the political protest.

I remind you that this is a government that didn't think there was much priority around child care and child care spaces when one of the first acts it took was to cancel all the child care spaces that had been funded 100% by our government to allow Jobs Ontario Training to go on as a program. The government didn't have much concern about all those parents who were using those spaces so they could participate in training in private sector employer workplaces and get off the system and get into employment on a full-time basis. The government didn't worry about cancelling those spaces for those kids, for those parents who were trying to get a start again in the workforce - no problem at all. We lost thousands of spaces across this province directly as a result of that action by this government.

This is a government that pretends to care about child care and provision of the same, but in Bill 160 clearly has said that the government will no longer provide capital funds to build child care spaces in new schools in this province, something our government did, something I was proud to be a part of. We made it clear that in new schools that were being built, space had to be set aside, paid for by the province, to establish child care centres so that young students or even adult students who wanted to return to get their grade 12 or wanted to complete their education would not have to worry about where they were going to obtain and how they were going to pay for that child care. They would have that provided onsite, and they could have some comfort knowing their children were being looked after when they were attending school to try and finish their education. This is the government that has cancelled capital funding for new child care centres to be built with new schools being built. How much concern does that demonstrate for child care spaces?

This is a government whose Minister of Community and Social Services put forward a report on child care which will have the effect of severely curtailing, limiting or decreasing health and safety standards in child care centres, where things like fencing and natural light aren't important any more to this government and where the report itself recommends changes in those very things, decreasing those very standards that all of us thought were secure. In the same report, it's a government that would have even more kids looked after by a single worker than ever before and thus compromise the safety of toddlers and pre-schoolers.

This is a government that through this same report has also decided that it's okay that we take money from child care workers, who are one of the lowest-paid groups in our society, and use that money to provide new subsidies, instead of the government trying to increase the pay of those very workers who look after our children and providing new spaces with new child care funding. The government that suddenly cares so much about child care has a report done by its very own now Comsoc minister which frankly would really destroy the regulated, standardized, formal child care system in this province in favour of a voucher system, where people have to go back to being concerned about unregulated, unlicensed child care.

I have a real problem listening to the government on this bill give me their rhetoric about how concerned they are to make sure that parents get compensated for child care, when every action they've taken on child care has been an attack on the same. I remind you that this is a government that promised an extra $200 million over five years for child care in the province in a budget in 1996, and that same government didn't spend one cent of the $40 million that was allocated for child care in fiscal year 1996-97, not a single cent, even though there is a crying need out there for new spaces and for new subsidized spaces.

It's the same Minister of Finance who made the announcement about the $200 million who would not guarantee, when the issue was raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that he would then take the $40 million that he refused to spend last year and roll it in and spend $80 million this year. No, indeed we're going to have now some kind of tax credit, which parents won't even be able to claim until 1998. That's the commitment of this government on child care.

It's a little bit hard to swallow the government's new-found concern for providing child care and making sure parents have access to child care when all the evidence to date shows that they have done nothing, in fact are moving backwards, when it comes to the provision of child care in this province.

Third, I'm concerned about the contradiction with respect to employer reprisal. The government, through the bill, says it wants to protect parents who had emergency child care needs and who had to leave their place of work or not go in to work during the days of the political protest, to make sure they won't suffer any kind of reprisal from their employer.

The government wants to limit that period to only October 27 to November 7, as if that might be the only time when parents could suffer reprisal from employers because they had emergency child care needs. If it's good enough to protect people from a possible reprisal because you have emergency child care needs during a teachers' political protest, why isn't it good enough to guarantee that to parents all the time? There is no doubt in my mind that any number of parents on any given workday in this province find themselves in that situation, have to leave work or cannot come in to work because on that particular day they have an emergency child care need that cannot be met by a parent or a child care centre or their regular babysitter.

If it's good enough to protect those parents during the political protest, why doesn't that government enshrine in law that when that happens to parents in this province, when they have emergency child care needs, they will not suffer a reprisal from their employer, regardless of when that happens, so that parents will know they will have that protection not only retroactively during the two-week period the teachers were off but that they will have the protection now, enshrined in law? If you care seriously about protecting parents in that way, then the bill should speak to how we do that for parents on an ongoing basis, how we protect them, how we help them meet their child care needs. But no, the government has refused to do that, and the period of grace only extends to the two weeks the teachers were in the midst of their political protest.

1700

Finally, with respect to the issue of the contradiction that I see between this bill and the government's actions in other areas, I want to deal with the issue of compensation. The government has put the bill forward in the hopes of saying very clearly to people: "We recognize that you had additional costs because of the political protest. We will compensate you for the same because you had needs that had to be met." I remind members of this House of the fiasco created by the Attorney General when he shut down the family support plan overnight, closed the regional offices without any centralized office being in place, up and running to provide service, when overnight he laid off 290 experienced family support plan staff, 85% of the total complement of that operation, and everyone in this House knows, even if they're not prepared to admit it, that thousands and thousands of women and children who used to receive regular family support plan cheques didn't receive them any more. They were lost. They were up in those boxes at Downsview that we saw during our visit there on November 7.

Many, many thousands of women and families suffered as a consequence, had their heat turned off, their hydro turned off, their water turned off, received eviction notices, received penalties from their banks because of late payments. Any number of things happened to these people, and the Attorney General, only after a great deal of pressure in this House because of the evidence of the damage he had caused singlehandedly to all these people, finally had to say, "We will provide some compensation to some of those women who were affected," and he put in place a scheme that would allow some of those women to get compensation for two months only - as if suddenly the chaos ended after November 1996, as if suddenly in November 1996 all those women and all those kids finally started to get their cheques. It was a slap in the face to those women, a complete insult to all who had suffered serious financial loss because of his incompetence and because of his decision that it was more important to fund a tax cut than it was to ensure women and kids got their ongoing support.

This government that is being so magnanimous today, that is going to provide $40 per family per day without receipts as compensation for hardship, this same government, in the face of the financial distress of thousands and thousands of women across this province, due directly to this government's action, through the incompetence of this Attorney General, provided a mere two months' compensation for those women and children who had to pay all kinds of penalties and charges because their cheques were delayed and they could not make their payments.

I'd like to know how many payments were actually made by this Attorney General, because not only did they limit the compensation to a mere two months, they did absolutely nothing to publicize that people could actually get compensation. There was no legislation passed. The Attorney General didn't even have the decency to do a mailing to family support plan recipients to tell them they might be entitled and how they could apply. He did nothing, and I'm appalled again at the contradiction between what this government allowed to have happen to thousands and thousands of women and what this government is now prepared to do in the face of a teachers' political protest to try and make amends. It just doesn't add up.

The whole process of dealing with this bill has just been ridiculous. Yesterday the government moved a motion which effectively ended any opportunity for amendments to be put. In the time I have been here, which is 10 years, I have never seen a government move a motion where we could not put amendments to pieces of legislation. No bill is perfect and the government itself from time to time has to bring forward its amendments.

Yesterday this Conservative government decided there didn't have to be any further debate except for third reading; there didn't have to be amendments put. They want this bill out the door as fast as they can. That, no doubt, has to do with the fact that this government finally managed to ram through Bill 160 this week. So again in terms of trying to do damage control around Bill 160, the government is trying to get this bill out the door in the hope that somehow they can assuage the feelings of all those parents out there who believed the teachers were right and who believe that the quality of education is suffering under this government.

I've got to tell you, if you think you're going to be able to buy off people with $40 a day over two weeks and make them forget about what's happening around Bill 160 or what's happening to the quality of education in this province, you've got another think coming, because this issue and people's concerns about the government agenda on Bill 160 are not going away. The concerns, people's fears, are growing. That is being manifested every day out there in communities by people who continue to demonstrate against this bill, who continue to demonstrate against this government's agenda.

If the government really cared about kids and about families, as they purport to do in this legislation, then the government would do a number of things, first with respect to education and then with respect to a number of broader issues respecting kids and families. If the government really cared about children and education, then the government would put back the money it took out for junior kindergarten and ensure that board after board in this province could provide junior kindergarten to the youngest citizens in our community. Every study has shown, and this was demonstrated again through the Royal Commission on Learning, that the best advantage we can give our kids is to make sure they have an equal and an early start.

It was a shame that this government decided the royal commission's recommendations meant nothing, that all the studies done in other jurisdictions meant nothing and that at the end of the day they were quite prepared to reduce the funding for JK and ensure that across a number of boards they had no choice but to cancel it. Give the money back if you care.

Mr Lessard: On a point of order: I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Could you please check if we have a quorum.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Ms Martel: If the government cared about kids and families, the government would reinstate the early years project, begun under us, to ensure that we had kids in school early so they could get an equal start and a good start regardless of their background.

If they cared about kids at all, they would put back the money for capital for child care, so that in new schools that are being created across this province there will be child care spaces, so that students who have children and want to return and complete their education can do that, knowing that their kids are going to be cared for onsite.

1710

If the government cared about kids and cared about families, they would say, "No more cuts to education." The Premier would get up and deny that in Veronica Lacey's contract for employment the government intends to take another $667 million out. The government would stand in its place and say, "Not only will we reinvest any money that we find in savings through some of the initiatives in Bill 104, we guarantee there will be no further cuts to education in this province." That way we might actually be able to protect special ed for some of the kids who need it across our communities.

If the government cared about kids and families, the government would put back the 5% that it took from children's mental health in the last budget. The government would put back the funding that it took from children's aid societies, to try and protect kids who were at risk. The government would put back the 21% that it took from social assistance, which leaves kids now more than ever in deeper poverty, using food banks, living in hostels, in a way that has never been seen in Ontario.

If the government cared about kids and about families, the minister for women's issues would put back the money for counselling at second-stage housing so that women and families who had been abused could be guaranteed access to that counselling.

If the government cared about women and kids, then the government would reopen the offices of the family support plan and hire back the 40% of staff who have been permanently cut so that that outfit could deal adequately with all the people who require support in the province. The problems over there have not gone away. We see it every day in our office.

If the government really cared about kids and children as they allege they do through this bill, the government would look at the whole host of services and programs for children which they have systematically cut or systematically destroyed, and they would reinstate the funds to protect our youngest citizens in our communities, but the government doesn't want to do that.

This government has no intention of doing that, because this government would rather take that money to help finance the tax cut for its rich friends than protect those same programs and services for our kids. That's what I find so contradictory about the bill that's before us, where the government alleges its concern for kids and for child care, and what the reality is with respect to what the government has done on any number of other programs for kids and for families across this province.

As I said earlier, the government uses this bill in the hope that it can provide some political damage control for Bill 160. As I said earlier, that concern, those fears about Bill 160 and about the overall government agenda, are not going away. People out there recognize that Bill 160 does nothing to improve the quality of education in this province. If you lay off teachers because you have cut prep time, that doesn't make your class sizes smaller. If you allow non-teachers to provide instruction in the class, that's not going to improve your test results. If you allow all control with respect to local decision-making and the setting of the tax rate to be centralized in Toronto, that doesn't help local boards respond to local education needs. People out there know that Bill 160 means more cuts to education, through the bill and through the funding formula that this government refuses yet to reveal to the public. I suspect it is so bad that they want to wait until this House has recessed before that gets released anywhere.

I am very concerned about the bill. I am very concerned that the government moved so that we couldn't even place amendments to the bill that we are dealing with today. But if the government thinks that providing $40 per family over the days of the political protest is somehow going to make the education issue go away and people's concerns about the quality of education in this province go away, they are sadly mistaken. The teachers' political protest focused on education in a way never before done in this province. People are concerned about public education. They want it protected, and they know another $667 million worth of cuts next year ain't going to improve the quality of education in this province. They will not be fooled.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to contribute to the debate on Bill 161. I'd first of all like to talk of one issue that has been raised by both parties on the opposition side, and that is this issue of the allegation that one does not need a receipt to obtain payments to assist parents with respect to day care under this bill. That allegation is simply not true. If one were to look at section 3 of the bill, which has to do with payments to parents and guardians, one will see that to qualify for receiving such a payment you have to make an application and you have to put forward certain information on that application. This is all set out in the bill, if the members had taken the time to read the bill.

If they make a false declaration, the bill says, "A person who knowingly submits false information on an application for payment is guilty of an offence." Not only that, that's called fraud. If they're found guilty of fraud, they're going to go to jail. The suggestion that the government is just handing over money to anyone who makes an application simply is not true. The procedure that has been put forward by the new Minister of Labour is a most responsible position to assist parents and guardians who have been disadvantaged as a result of this illegal strike action that was taken by the teachers of this province.

The short title of this bill is the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act (Teachers' Withdrawal of Services). The minister is very generous in that, because some people call it a withdrawal of services, some people call it a strike, an illegal strike. I know the members of the opposition and many teachers will say, "There was a court that said it was not an illegal strike," and that's not quite so. That isn't what happened. Notwithstanding that, there are others who will call it civil disobedience, which I find a rather scary proposition which seems to be carrying forward in other union activity. The postal union people are saying that, notwithstanding any back-to-work order, there's going to be disobedience in this country, civil disobedience, which is almost a form of anarchy.

Notwithstanding whether you call it withdrawal of services, an illegal strike, civil disobedience, the fact is that there have been third parties that have been disadvantaged as a result of the action that has been taken by the teachers of this province, or many of the teachers of this province, because not all teachers took that action. It will have an effect on, of course, the children. We'll wait and see whether the time for teaching that was lost has been made up. I know the boards in my riding - I don't know whether all the boards have been cancelling professional development days to enable children to make up the time that was lost.

There have been other issues. Teachers have called my constituency office and have informed me that they have been threatened by their fellow teachers, by members of the teachers' federation, the teachers' union, that if they cross the picket line, there would be repercussions at a later date.

I have had individuals, parents, who have called my office and said, "This has had an effect on my job." If you take off any time from work to look after your children because there's no place for them to go - normally they would go to school, young children in elementary schools at least - this will be a black mark on your job or indeed, if it persists beyond a reasonable period of time, it could result in the loss of your job.

Parents have called me who have been most concerned about the repercussions against children; that if children demonstrate in class, if they wear any form of information that indicates they are in support of Bill 160, there would be repercussions. Children have been asked to take home information in support of Bill 160.

Whether members of the public support or are opposed to Bill 160, this unfortunate incident that has occurred for the period set forth in the bill, October 27 to November 2, 1997, has caused some very serious problems in the province, and it is those problems this bill wishes to address.

1720

I had, for example, an elementary school teacher who was afraid to identify herself call my constituency office. She had crossed the picket line on the first day of the strike and was afraid to do it again after the reception she received from fellow teachers, and she was receiving anonymous phone calls. I had a teacher call who, prior to the strike, prepared a program for her class; it was a voluntary program for the school. She was told they were not really interested in the type of program. I don't want to get into too many details because I don't want to identify her. She was told, "We really have no interest in that." Now she's being told, "Get on with that program and do it now or it'll mean a black mark on your job."

We have on the government side an obligation to protect the children of this province, to protect the teachers of this province and to protect the parents, the third parties who have sustained grave problems as a result of the illegal action that was taken by the teachers of this province, and that is exactly what this bill intends to do.

Summaries have been given in the past by former speakers. The parliamentary assistant made those summaries, and I wish to repeat those.

The bill contains three parts. It will result in a payment of up to $40 per day to parents or guardians of school-age children who were unable to attend a publicly funded school. I might add that although those application forms, when this bill is passed, will be made available to school boards, I believe they will also be made available, if members are interested in receiving those forms, in the various constituency offices. I will attempt to have those forms available in my office.

Second, it will provide protection from dismissal or discipline of employees who were unable to work because of child care responsibilities during the strike. As I have indicated, I have parents and guardians in that precise situation in my riding who I hope will take advantage of this section.

Third, it will offer protection from reprisals by teachers' unions against teachers who refused to participate in or support the province-wide strike.

Others before me have elaborated and others after me will be elaborating more on those specific issues. Again, to briefly summarize with respect to the payments to parents and guardians adversely affected by the teachers' strike, this payment would be available only to parents and guardians with school children 13 years of age or younger, children in child care facilities or day nurseries located in schools that were closed due to the teachers' action, or special-needs students in secondary schools. Parents or guardians would be able to apply for payments for any school day between October 27 and November 7 of this year that their children's school or school-based child care centre or nursery was closed, school bus transportation usually used by the children was not available, special education programs or services for their special needs children were not available, or in their opinion their children were unable to enter the school or school-based child care centre or nursery school or were unlikely to be safely supervised there during the teachers' strike.

There is another speaker from our side who wishes to address this assembly. I congratulate the new Minister of Labour in bringing forward this legislation, because I think the people of this province cry out for assistance from this government, and we're going to do just that.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill 161. It's very interesting having heard the debate from government members, from opposition members, who talk about what this piece of legislation is actually about. It really has two parts to it. The first is the $40 bribe to parents. The second part, however, indicates the ongoing mean-spiritedness of the current government. I'll get into both of those during the course of my remarks.

In fact, I have attended a great number of public meetings held by parents within Oriole, and they have certainly expressed concerns about the government's package of education reforms, particularly in regard to Bill 160 and also in regard to the proposed funding formulae which are supposed to be coming from this government and have been promised many, many times.

As I indicated in my initial remarks, Bill 161 amounts to a bribe to parents. It was a slick promise, part of a public relations exercise. When the government should have been negotiating and working with teachers, with parents, with students in the province to bring in meaningful reform, workable reform, something to benefit students, it decided to take an abrasive, confrontational stance and forced a political protest from 126,000 teachers in this province, unprecedented in the history of this country and something I hope is never repeated. I hope we will return to some semblance of common sense, decency and working together with our educational partners, because it has not happened with this particular government, with Mr Harris and Mr Johnson at the forefront provoking teachers, provoking parents, provoking students.

The message from parents in Oriole is quite clear. They will not be bribed with this money, with $400, because that $400 is not going to make them forget the impact of Bill 160, in fact the impact of what went before it: $533 million reduced from education, social contract savings made permanent.

Parents have said they agree that this is a bribe and they will not be fooled into supporting Mike Harris and his agenda for cutting classroom education. At every meeting I've attended, when parents were told the scope and magnitude of what the government has proposed and what has gone before, they've told me that what they intend to do is take any money that comes to them and give it back to their local schools, a suggestion this government would do well to listen to. Their own experts at the Education Improvement Commission recommended that any savings found through education be reinvested back into classrooms, be reinvested back towards supporting the children of Ontario.

There has been a noticeable decline in classroom education in Mike Harris's Ontario. We've had junior kindergarten eliminated from Ontario. It was made non-mandatory and then the government said, "Go and cut all the non-mandatory programs" - 26 boards of education, just a precursor of what's going to happen across this province directly as a result of what this government has done. That has had a significant impact on classrooms in this province.

Parents have been concerned about many of the unanswered questions in Bill 161. They want to know if the rebate is taxable. The government hasn't been able to answer those questions. They're tired of "trust me" arguments. No more of this "Write us a blank cheque." Write it down and spell it out. They want to know if the funds will be treated as income and will result in reduced payments to parents on workers' compensation, employment insurance, welfare. The government has refused to answer these questions. Jim Flaherty is saying, "Trust me."

Finally, many parents have been concerned about so-called double-dipping, since they don't have to submit receipts. The previous speaker was citing the requisite passage but nowhere in this legislation - in fact, Mr Flaherty specifically said receipts are not required. I suggest to the government members that they speak with their cabinet and their front bench and review Hansards which have indicated that that is certainly not a requirement of Bill 161. The double-dipping could potentially occur under this government, which claims to be a good manager of money. This certainly doesn't seem like running government like a business, as was quoted in some document that I know a number of members on the opposite side support and have those feelings about.

1730

There will be impacts on boards of education because the boards must pay regardless of whether there are enough savings, enough dollars in the pot, in those reserves, to cover the demand. Today we heard from the Minister of Education, who said he was maybe going to provide some assistance to boards, but a clear, unequivocal statement is what boards need. If the provincial government does not supply any overage that could potentially occur, those dollars come right out of classrooms, right out of operating funds.

How far will this government go in trying to bribe parents with their own dollars? We're not going to sacrifice our children for that.

As I alluded to earlier, you can't assess Bill 161 out of the context of the total package. Some $32 million was identified as the saving from the two-week work stoppage during the political protest. Why isn't this money being invested in classrooms? The Minister of Education, the Premier and the members of the government all profess to want to put money back into classrooms. Well, if that is an attributable saving, why not put it back? Where is the compensation for the end of junior kindergarten? What about adult day programs? Where is the compensation for that? Where is the compensation for special education programs, which have been reduced or eliminated across this province? Why doesn't the government put a pricetag on that? Deafening silence - unbelievable.

The other part of this is the mean-spiritedness. Before I begin, I just want to say that if this bill were solely about compensation, I would have no problem supporting it, but it's not. It is that mean-spirited, abrasive attack attitude this government has. It is absolutely insulting that the government would write into law that there will be no reprisals, when they go and spend $3.5 million - taxpayer dollars, my dollars, your dollars - on election-style attack ads against their opponents; when they collect dossiers of information on people who come and present at public hearings. This government has absolutely no moral authority in telling anybody about repercussions, about reprisals and about any kind of human dynamic in relation to fair play.

This government showed it wanted to retaliate against vice-principals and principals by adding an amendment to Bill 160 which would take them out of the bargaining units and strip them of all fundamental protections.

This mean-spiritedness, this abrasiveness, this actual hypocrisy is why the two opposition parties voted against the bill on first reading and why I will be voting against this bill on final and third reading.

Mr Lessard: I rise to speak on third reading debate with respect to Bill 161 as a parent of a son named Brett. He'll be five years old in a couple of weeks, and he attends senior kindergarten at King Edward school in Walkerville in the city of Windsor. As a result of the teachers' political protest, my wife and I found it necessary to make alternative child care arrangements and did experience some inconvenience as a result of that political protest.

I know as a parent, and my wife knows, that there are many in our community who experienced some inconvenience. Although my wife and I don't find it absolutely necessary to claim $40 a day for the two weeks the teachers were off, I know there are many persons in Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside who would really appreciate being compensated $40 a day and will be quite surprised to know that their member of provincial Parliament, in fact my wife and my member of provincial Parliament, voted against providing $40 a day in compensation for parents who had to make alternative child care arrangements as a result of the teachers' political protest.

Having said that, I can't support this bill either, but for different reasons. This bill is called, "An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing $40 a day" - and I paraphrase, of course. But it really should be entitled, "An Act by a desperate government to buy support from the public in its dying days." That's what the title really should be.

It is just a blatant and cynical attempt to try and buy votes and use the teachers' political protest as an excuse to do it. We need to really just look back at the reasons why the government felt compelled to introduce Bill 161 in the first place. What would motivate a government to embark on a giant money giveaway, a giveaway that was so irresponsible that it didn't even require any receipts for the public to make a claim to get the money? Who wouldn't mind getting $40 a day, $400 just sort of thrown into their laps? Not many of us would refuse if that opportunity came along. But the reason the government felt compelled to embark on this giant money giveaway was to try and shorten the teachers' political protest. It didn't work.

This was just an example of the government's total mismanagement of the issue of the teachers' political protest right from the get-go. Mike Harris's TV address during the protest really hardened the resolve of teachers. It was a direct attack on teachers. Their resolve was hardened as well when Howard Hampton and Bud Wildman in the NDP revealed that the real purpose behind Bill 160 was to withdraw $667 million from the education system. Parents began to ask themselves, "How can a government improve the quality of education and withdraw almost a billion dollars from the system?" The answer is that it just can't be done. People began to realize that. This $400, $40 a day, is really an apology by a government that has been mismanaging the issue of dealing with education quality and with the teachers right from the beginning.

Having said that, who wouldn't want to get $400 from the government? But we have some questions in our caucus. Is this going to be considered income? How is it going to be treated for those who are on social assistance, for example? We wished to bring in some amendments to this legislation to get those questions resolved, but because this government brought in a time allocation motion yesterday to shut down debate on this bill in an unprecedented fashion, we're not going to be able to introduce any amendments to this legislation. It's another example of a government that's moving too far, too fast, in the wrong direction. It's moving ahead with its legislative agenda in a fashion that doesn't permit us to reflect upon these bills, to introduce any amendments. It's a case of really introducing legislation without knowing what the impact is going to be.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I want to speak on Bill 161. Listening to the opposition, they make that bill look very complicated. But it's very simple legislation. I think the people in my riding think it's very simple and very well understood. My paper, the Observer, in my home town took a survey on the street and this is what some people are saying:

"`I have to claim it because I had to pay a babysitter out of my own pocket while I went to Lambton College,' said Shanna MacDonald, a parent of three students at Devine Street public school. MacDonald added though that she didn't think she would get the money.

"`I am going to put in a claim because it cost me double in babysitting for a week,' said Pattie Blondin, a parent of one Devine Street student. Blondin regularly pays a babysitter to take of her young child.

"Jennifer Thornton, a parent with one child" -

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there is a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Sarnia.

Mr Boushy: "Jennifer Thornton, a parent of one child who attends Devine Street said she won't be looking to collect any money. `I was at home with her all day and didn't have to pay out at all for child care,' she said.

"Another person, Steve Dinel, a parent of three children at St Margaret's separate school, also said he wouldn't be trying to get child care compensation. `It's tempting, but it wouldn't be fair since my wife was at home during the strike,' he said."

I am very pleased to continue debate on Bill 161, a bill that would help parents, employees and the brave educators who dared to cross the picket lines during the illegal teachers' strike. I am even more pleased that this bill will soon be law.

I read the article in the Sarnia Observer wherein a parent expressed her doubts that she'll ever see the money that our government promised. This bill will prove again that this government stands by what it says and that we are prepared to do what is right.

Yes, it would have been easy for us to ignore the inconvenience to parents who felt the effects of the strike. I am not aware of any precedent for compensating families for the expenses incurred because of an illegal walkout. However, this is the right thing, the fair action and the fair thing to do.

Families were negatively affected by the illegal closure of schools. Parents had every right to expect that their children would be going to class. Instead, they found themselves scrambling to find arrangements for the care of their kids. Schedules had to be rearranged, and in some instances time needed to be taken off work.

Bill 161 will guarantee that no employee will suffer workplace repercussions for having missed work or being late as a result of having to look after their children. I am happy to report that I have not heard of a single instance in my riding or anywhere else where an employer acted unfairly in this regard. However, I believe this legislation will bring additional comfort to any employee who may be worried.

As for prohibiting unions from taking action against teachers who crossed the lines or tried to convince other teachers to go back to work, this is absolutely essential.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It is now 5:45, and pursuant to the order of the House of December 2, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Flaherty has moved third reading of Bill 161. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill be now passed and be entitled as in the motion.

It being close to 6 of the clock, the House is adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1745.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

December 3, 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

SANTA ON WHEELS

WATER QUALITY

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE WEB SITE

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

TVONTARIO

ACADEMIC TESTING

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PETITIONS

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

ARREST OF PROTESTORS

ABORTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHARITY CASINOS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

ABORTION

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

TRAFFIC CONTROL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)