Hansard Transcripts 2001-Jun-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Each day when we sit in this House, we are constantly reminded of the ferocious attack on the people of Ontario by the Mike Harris government. In six years the Mike Harris government has consistently attacked the poor, the working families, organized labour and the most vulnerable in our society, our children. The Mike Harris government has undermined the democratic structure and the fabric of Canadian society, and it is evident.

In a democratic society it is a responsibility of the government to protect those vulnerable people. Let's take a look at what Mike Harris and his government have done to those individuals and what has happened in those six years. For their first act, welfare recipients were attacked, with 25% slashed from their income as they arrived. The attacks continue on and on. Today we read in the paper that, of course, they would be subject to a literacy test. Let's just remind them that 33% of all people in Ontario are functionally illiterate. I hope we do a literacy test here sometime to see if our members deserve their pay.

The omnibus bill that came in: we can remind them that no discussion, no debate whatsoever was happening here. Most of the legislation here has had no process of any consultation. Then we ask the Mike Harris government how democratic they can be. They should be ashamed of themselves and the way they conduct themselves in a democratic society.

CANADIAN BASEBALL HALL OF FAME
AND MUSEUM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): The sky may be falling in Scarborough-Rouge River, but today I rise to promote one of Ontario's greatest tourist attractions, the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in St Marys. In 1838 Adam Ford, an early settler and former mayor of St Marys, chronicled a game being played in Beachville, Ontario. He later organized a league in St Marys to advance this new game called baseball.

Since the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum opened in 1983, it has inducted almost 50 people, including great players, builders and key contributors to the game of baseball, including Ferguson Jenkins, Lester B. Pearson and Jim Fanning. On Friday, June 22, the hall of fame will host its fifth annual celebrity golf tournament in St Marys, followed by the induction ceremony on Saturday. This year the hall of fame will induct former Montreal Expo Gary Carter and former Toronto Blue Jay Dave McKay.

Over the years, the baseball hall of fame has helped to promote the growth of baseball in Canada at every level, from pee-wee and slo-pitch to high school and women's softball leagues. I want to congratulate the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring the field of dreams to life in St Marys. I would encourage my colleagues to visit our national shrine for baseball, the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in St Marys, Ontario.

DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Today I'd like to tell you about a courageous woman who pickets my office every Friday, namely Lynn Bruyere. For the past 10 months, Lynn has been travelling three times a week to Brockville and Kingston for life-saving dialysis treatment. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Lynn's husband or family drives her to Brockville or Kingston for the treatment. Her husband has to work nights so that he can be with her for the treatment.

After four hours of dialysis treatment, Lynn travels back to her home, regardless of the weather. They have no choice. On treatment day, Lynn does not see her family until 7 pm, after the long day of treatment.

The government refused to provide additional funding for the Cornwall dialysis clinic. It's taken a toll on the patients. Eighteen patients are still travelling; one of these is 76 years old. I'm not sure if the government understands what these people are going through and are forced to cope with.

I have written to the Minister of Health several times over the past two months and have spoken about this desperate situation. I still have not received an answer. The whole situation is unacceptable, especially when a proposal is on the table that would substantially reduce the waiting list for the Cornwall area. I have called on the government to implement this proposal immediately. It would not cost an extra penny to the government if they implemented this proposal.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The region of Niagara is historically underserviced in acute care mental health beds, and very specifically so when it comes to children's mental health beds and residential assistance. This government's health restructuring commission allocated some few new beds for children's mental health services to Niagara, but they put the beds in Hamilton. I want the Minister of Health to understand very, very clearly that Hamilton is not Niagara, and Niagara is not Hamilton.

Historically, Niagara children and other psychiatric and mental health patients have had a hard time accessing the few beds available to them in Hamilton. They're going to have compounded difficulty accessing these new beds. Niagara health services, a creature of this government by virtue of its imposition of so-called restructuring -- mega-hospital boarding -- on Niagara is clearly out of touch with what's happening on the ground, across the board in Niagara when it comes to delivery of health care services. Their firing of Dr Abraham, which I reported to this Legislature yesterday, is an indication of that. The inability of Niagara health services -- quite frankly, their collaboration with this government in denying Niagara the children's mental health beds that are allocated to Niagara is a further example of that.

I'm calling upon this minister to begin investigating what's been going on there, to call for the reinstatement of Dr Abraham and to support Niagara people in ensuring that those mental health beds go to Niagara where they belong.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): More letters of support are being sent to my constituency office in Kitchener Centre supporting the initiative this government took to help parents who choose to send their children to independent schools. I would like to read two more letters, one being from Dan and Bettina Cook:

"Dear Wayne Wettlaufer:

"Just a short note to thank you for the long-awaited tax credit plan for families with children in independent schools.

"We have two children in a Christian school here in Waterloo, and this will definitely help us with the tuition.

"Sincerely,

"Dan and Bettina Cook."

The following letter is from Danette and Rick Wirth:

"Dear Wayne Wettlaufer,

"My husband and I are parents of two boys, age seven and 11, who attend a Lutheran school in Kitchener. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for providing the tax credit for parents of children attending independent schools. We are both middle-class working parents, and sending our children to an independent school has been a financial sacrifice but one that is well worth it.

"Both of our children have thrived at this school. As well as learning the fundamentals such as reading, writing and math, they are learning about God and about being Christian. They are learning the same values at school that are being taught at home and at church. This is a very important factor in our lives.

"We believe that all parents should have the right to send their child to a school that would benefit their child and family the most. Thank you for recognizing the responsibility the government has for all the children in the province.

"Yours sincerely,

"Danette and Rick Wirth."

Parents in my riding and throughout Ontario appreciate the fact that we are thinking about all the children in Ontario and not only those who go to Catholic or public schools. I continue to believe that this initiative by our government will finally help to --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I rise on behalf of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal caucus to recognize an important date that took place in the history of mankind in 1898: Philippines Independence Day. As we raise the colours of the Philippine flag and its stars and the sun, we are reminded of two things: one, the great sacrifices the Filipino nation made in those dark days. We remember the death march of April 9, 1942, we remember Corregidor and the fall thereof, we remember the tyrannies and the dictatorships.

But there's another reason we celebrate this important event today, and that is the great contribution that Filipino-Canadians have made to this great society. So, today, while members can see the flag flying in front of Queen's Park, I'm reminded as well that we have some distinguished members here who are helping us celebrate this important event. They are Edgar Badajos, vice-consul of the Philippine republic, Monina Lim-Serrano, president of the Filipino-Canadian association, and, of course, many of the veterans. We owe them a great deal of gratitude. So I say to them in Tagalog: Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. Mabuhay ang Republika ng Pilipinas. Mabuhay, Mr Speaker.

1340

CHILD PROTECTION KITS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the combined efforts of the Campbellford Lodge, No 248, Grand Lodge of Ontario, the Independent Order of Oddfellows, the Loch Lommond Rebekah Lodge, the Northumberland detachment of the OPP and the local school boards for their work in completing child identification kits. Since the spring of 1999, these groups have fingerprinted and collected DNA samples of approximately 1,700 children at St Mary's, Hillcrest and Kent schools in Campbellford, Percy Centennial school in Warkworth and Hastings elementary school in Hastings, at fairs and other local events.

These kits can play an important role, as accurately recorded information can assist authorities to respond quickly to a fire, medical or missing child emergency. These kits contain important information such as photos, DNA and hair samples, the parents' and doctors' names and addresses, the child's route taken to and from school, the playground location and the names and addresses of five of their friends.

I commend the Campbellford Lodge, No 248, the Loch Lommond Rebekah Lodge, the Northumberland detachment of the OPP and the local school boards for the initiative taken in ensuring the safety and well-being of the children in Campbellford, Warkworth and Hastings. I hope that perhaps other communities will follow their lead with regard to child safety.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (York South-Weston): I take this opportunity to commend the dedicated teachers and principal of Nelson A. Boylen Collegiate Institute in my riding of York South-Weston. Their work helping needy students overcome economic barriers is nothing short of outstanding.

Nelson A. Boylen has been identified as one of the neediest schools in the Toronto District School Board, as determined by the Inner-City Index. And yet, as an article by Louise Brown points out, "Against all odds the spirit at this school crackles with hope."

The student population at the school is very diverse. One third of the students are newcomers to Canada and face countless socio-economic hurdles to their education.

The school board has done what it can by providing nutrition programs, afterschool homework groups and computer labs. But the chronic underfunding this government has perpetrated on the school board is now hitting home and those programs have had to be cut.

What this government is doing to public education is now clear. The one great equalizer in our society, public education, is now being eliminated. It's a reversal of immense proportions, unprecedented in our country's history. It's a real shame, because what this government is doing is establishing a society that is now divided along socio-economic lines. In those areas where they can afford it, schools pay for additional things. In other neighbourhoods where they can't, such as in the Nelson A. Boylen neighbourhood, kids are falling behind through no fault of their own, and that's a shame on you, government.

EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to tell about a great family event that my colleague and MPP, Jerry Ouellette from Oshawa, arranged this past weekend.

On a gorgeous Saturday afternoon in Kendal, which is a small town in my riding of Durham, at the Kendal Hills Game Preserve, we held a kids' fishing day. I was very impressed with the number of young people and their parents who came out to enjoy a day of camaraderie and fun while learning about the outdoors, nature and the wilderness.

I would like to thank some of the following people, without whose assistance this would not have been possible: Norm Monaghan of the Ontario Anglers and Hunters, Rick Thompson, Glen Anderson and Vern Mason, just to name a few. Thank you, gentlemen, for your donation of time and experience for our young people in Durham.

A big thanks will also go to Big Brothers and Sisters of Clarington and their directors, Jenny Walhout and Ellie McMaster, for their efforts in helping to organize a fun day. I'd also like to thank the leaders of the scouts, cubs and beaver troops who attended and participated in a wonderful event. Along with members from the Simcoe Hall Settlement House, there were 300 or 400 young people involved in the great outdoors with their family and friends, having fun enjoying nature.

With time left, I should remind you that this weekend in Clarington, in Durham, is a big event: the Orono town bands will be performing in Orono on the 15th and 16th; the village of Newcastle will have the Massey show on the weekend; and Catch the Spirit, in Tyrone.

ANNUAL REPORT,
INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 2000 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise in the House today to seek the support of this House for unanimous consent to pass Bill 53 through second reading. It's the act requiring the disclosure of payments to former public sector employees arising from the termination of their employment. Before the House prorogued, it had passed second reading and was referred to the standing committee on general government. I ask for unanimous consent for it to reach the same stage.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain has asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill 53 through second reading. Agreed? No, not agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1252563 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2001

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive 1252563 Ontario Limited.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STABILITY AND EXCELLENCE
IN EDUCATION ACT, 2001 /
LOI DE 2001 SUR LA STABILITÉ
ET L'EXCELLENCE EN ÉDUCATION

Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 80, An Act to promote a stable learning environment and support teacher excellence / Projet de loi 80, Loi favorisant la stabilité du milieu de l'enseignement et soutenant l'excellence des enseignants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will 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 1348 to 1353.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 44; the nays are 34.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

1150982 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2001

Mr Spina moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive 1150982 Ontario Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

RDP COMPUTER
CONSULTING INC. ACT, 2001

Mrs Molinari moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive RDP Computer Consulting Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

STANLEY CUP VICTORY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Colorado Avalanche on winning the Stanley Cup. Although this is not a Canadian team, there are 14 Canadian players on this team, of which five are from Ontario, and the coaching staff are all Canadian. Bob Hartley, the head coach, is from my riding, a boy from Hawkesbury, and Stephane Yelle is from Bourget in my riding. We produce good hockey product in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Congratulations to all the players. I look forward to seeing the cup in my riding and, proudly, right here at Queen's Park.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): That of course is not a point of order.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding committee membership.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? No.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Since 1995, this government has been implementing a comprehensive plan to reform our publicly funded education system. Our goal is to help students succeed -- to build an education system that provides the education that parents want for their children, with a focus on quality, accountability and improved student achievement.

Our plan for quality education includes: a more rigorous curriculum from kindergarten through to grade 12; significant resources for education -- for example, for the 2001-02 school year, we have increased our investments in public education by more than $360 million; a new, province-wide code of conduct to make our classrooms safer, more respectful learning environments; new school council regulations to ensure that parents have a stronger voice in their children's education; a standardized testing program so parents know how well their students are doing; and most recently, Ontario's new early reading strategy, to help our schools improve children's literacy skills. These and other quality education initiatives demonstrate Ontario's ongoing commitment to setting higher standards for our schools, with an emphasis on performance-based accountability.

Today we are moving forward with the next step in our plan. Earlier this afternoon I introduced the Stability and Excellence in Education Act. If approved by this Legislature, it would implement a mandatory recertification program for teachers, a key component of our Ontario teacher testing program. Secondly, it will respond to the concerns from parents and students about labour disruptions involving school boards and teachers' and school staff unions. Thirdly, it will implement the government's decision to accept the key recommendations from the advisory group on co-instructional activities and our other education partners to ensure co-instructional activities are available to our students.

I would like to specifically recognize that in the gallery we have members of the co-instructional advisory group: Doug Brown, Ernie Checkeris, Cathy Cove, Matthew Walker and Colin Hood. I would like to thank them very much for their advice.

We also have in the gallery with us some other individuals who have been very helpful in their advice on this and other initiatives: Greg Reid, who is the chair of the Ontario Parent Council; Doretta Wilson, from the Organization for Quality Education; and Terry Ross, the executive director of Educators for Choice. Welcome to you as well.

The bill I am introducing today is another step toward increased quality, more accountability and improved student achievement. I would now like to outline the key components of this legislation for the House.

Firstly, this government knows that an important foundation for improved student achievement is quality teaching. Research clearly demonstrates the difference that a good teacher can make. Excellent teachers foster a passion for learning that students carry with them throughout their life. Excellent teachers also inspire their students to achieve things that they never thought possible.

One of the great privileges of this job is to have the opportunity to meet those many excellent teachers. Not only do they go above and beyond for their students, they also recognize that in today's rapidly changing world, a commitment to professional development and lifelong learning is imperative. That's why we've introduced our comprehensive teacher testing program, to ensure that all of our teachers, both new and experienced, have the most up-to-date training, knowledge and skills so they can help our students succeed and achieve higher standards.

Modelled on best practices in other jurisdictions, our program includes a series of initiatives which are being phased in over two years. Already in place are requirements that all new applicants for Ontario teaching certificates take a qualifying test similar to a lawyer's bar exam, starting next spring, and a language proficiency test, in effect since last fall, for new applicants to the profession who took their training outside of Ontario in a language other than English or French.

To be introduced over the coming months are: an internship program for new teachers to help them acquire strong teaching and classroom management skills; new province-wide performance appraisal standards to ensure all teachers can be evaluated and assessed regularly and consistently in their classrooms; a system to recognize teaching excellence; and a role for parents, educators and experts in a quality assurance process for our schools.

Today's legislation proposes another step in the comprehensive program: mandatory recertification. This was a key election promise that our government made in 1999 and also was recommended in 1995 by an all-party Royal Commission on Learning. The proposed program requires teachers to take part in a series of professional development courses and activities over five-year cycles throughout their careers. During each five-year cycle, all teachers would be required to successfully complete seven core courses and seven elective courses from an approved course list. Approved courses would of course include professional development activities and programs that many teachers already participate in regularly to improve their skills or to teach new subjects. Courses would focus on curriculum knowledge, student assessment, special education, teaching strategies, classroom management and leadership and the use of technology in communicating with parents and students. All courses would include assessments or other tests at the conclusion to ensure that they have been completed successfully.

We will be working with our education partners over the next several months to approve appropriate courses and providers. Course lengths would vary according to the learning requirements of each topic, ranging, for example, from one-day workshops to longer courses designed to upgrade qualifications.

This program would be phased in starting this fall with 40,000 randomly selected practising classroom teachers. In the new year, 6,500 new teachers will begin their five-year cycle. In the fall of next year, all other members of the Ontario College of Teachers, including principals, vice-principals and other certified teachers, would begin their five-year cycle.

Like parents, we know that an education system that is committed to quality is an education system where everyone must work together. This brings me to the second initiative in this legislation. Parents and students have expressed concern about how labour disputes between school boards and teachers and school staff unions have disrupted the educational year. We have listened to those concerns, and with this legislation, we are proposing two steps to provide greater labour stability.

While we continue to believe that local agreements are the best solution, we also believe that the collective bargaining process needs adjustments to better reflect the interests of parents and students and the need for greater stability. Our legislation, therefore, would require upcoming collective agreements between a school board and teachers' union to run for a term of three years to stop the annual bargaining and collective agreement process that some school boards and teachers' unions have been faced with. This requirement would be phased in. As current contracts expire, school boards and teachers' unions would be required to negotiate contracts that expire on August 31, 2004. All subsequent collective agreements would have a term of three years, an important initiative for stability for our parents and our students.

1410

We've recently seen in Toronto and Windsor-Essex, for example, that labour disputes involving support staff can also have a direct impact on the delivery of education to our students. The Education Relations Commission currently advises the government when the continuation of a strike or lockout involving teachers is putting students' education at risk, but the commission has no jurisdiction in labour disputes involving other board staff. The commission's advice is an important factor in a government's decision to legislate teachers back to work.

Today's legislation proposes allowing the commission to advise the government when student education is in jeopardy because of labour disputes involving other school board staff as well. These measures, if approved by the Legislature, would mean students, parents, teachers and school board employees would spend less time distracted by contract negotiations and the possibility of labour disputes, while unions and school boards would continue to have the flexibility they need to work out their own specific local agreements.

The third piece of this legislation today deals with restoring co-instructional or extracurricular activities in our schools. Those activities are an important part of any student's education and an integral part of their school experience. It is something that I have said and the government has recognized and we've said many, many times in this Legislature --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): What took you so long?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Obviously, the member for Kingston and the Islands wasn't listening, based on that heckle. Because of that importance, we established the advisory group on co-instructional activities, to provide advice on how to restore those activities where they had been withdrawn from our students.

The advisory group's recommendations met with wide acceptance from students, parents and our education partners. That group asked that all education partners set aside their original positions and work for the benefit of the students. Everyone said they would.

For its part, the government announced on May 7 of this year a significant package of initiatives that act on the key recommendations from the advisory group and our other education partners to ensure that co-instructional activities are indeed available to all of our students.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's our formula.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The third and final component of this bill provides the necessary legislation to implement this significant package -- and I hate to break it to the member for St Catharines, but no, it's not your formula.

The proposed legislation would give school boards and high school principals greater flexibility to recognize co-instructional activities when assigning teachers' workloads, an important initiative. The current requirement that high school teachers teach an average of 6.67 courses a year, the equivalent of an average of four hours and 10 minutes of instructional time a day, is maintained. However, there would be greater flexibility in the regulations that define that standard, that instructional time, to include time spent giving remedial help to students and on important duties such as supervising students and filling in, for example, for teachers involved in co-instructional activities.

The legislation would also allow a school board to pass a resolution to vary the maximum average class size in its high schools by up to one student. This would provide boards with the flexibility to access resources that could be used for local priorities to meet the needs of students for quality education.

Our proposed legislation would also repeal unproclaimed sections of the Education Accountability Act that could have required teachers to participate in co-instructional activity. We will also proclaim the sections of that act which will require school boards to develop and implement plans for the provision of co-instructional activities in high schools, and I should stress in high schools, because in our elementary schools this has not been a challenge faced by our students in those schools.

This bill will enable us to move forward with our education partners to make important, but necessary, changes. We are committed to setting higher standards for student achievement in Ontario, and we are committed to providing our students with the tools and the environment that they need to succeed.

The proposed Stability and Excellence in Education Act is an important step along the path to an education system where for all of us, all of the education partners, our highest priority is improving student achievement.

I would ask all members to join with me in supporting this very important legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Response?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): We're here today in the House bearing witness to the floundering, the lack of direction, the inability of this government when it comes to education. Elsewhere in this House is a committee rushing through momentous change to education that isn't even in the hands or the control or the influence of the Minister of Education. Instead, it's private school vouchers, rejected by 35 US states but run through by the Tory backbench here without so much as an education discussion.

Instead, what is the view and the vision of this government when it comes to education? It's about continuing turmoil and continuing instability.

Last December, we put forward a plan for peace in the schools, a peace plan for education that puts students first. What do the members and the minister opposite do? They rejected the plan to restore extracurricular activities and they waited 240 days and allowed, all around this province, students to lose faith in the school system, to lose access to the things they need for quality education. Each and every member of the government acquiesced and agreed that their political priorities took precedence over the students of this province.

Today in the gallery we have indeed a committee that was appointed and came back to the government with many recommendations. They're not all in this legislation. They're not dealing with the burden at elementary schools. Unfortunately, there's one recommendation this party takes exception to, the idea that this government, after having caused so much instability in our high schools -- new curriculum without support, lack of funding, lack of commitment to make sure the learning environment is good -- will then turn around today and offer to us an opportunity to increase class sizes in high schools. We reject that. We reject the idea that students in school should be deprived of extracurricular activities and have their class sizes increased as the unlikely and unacceptable trade-off.

This government has the gall to stand here in the House today and say they are prepared to move on something that every parent and every student in this province has been asking for with sincerity, and that is to do something to bring peace and stability to the schools. Every opportunity they had, they have missed. Today they say to us, "We will mandate three-year agreements." I don't know what magic wand the minister has in her desk or what little flick of her wrist she thinks will make that happen, but it is obviously not even really genuine wishful thinking on the part of this government when it doesn't take any level of responsibility. A government that wants peace in our schools has to take responsibility for the challenges in our schools.

What is the record this government is running away from? This is a government that has collectively deprived, in its five sad years in office, in terms of education, not to mention many other things, 1.7 million days of instruction and learning away from the students of this province -- 1.7 million, five times the number of days lost during the previous five years. This is a government that has been reckless when it comes to our students' education in this province, reckless with the future of the children in this province.

Earlier this week we revealed what the government does not want to focus on, which is its lack of responsibility taken. It has actually decreased funding by $10 million. It will be hard enough for people to give even a facsimile of education when there's no commitment by this government -- not willing to make a single sacrifice, not drop a single tax cut, not put any priority into education. It has been $2 billion, but even more important, an unquantifiable lack of commitment that has gone missing and that can't be found in the statement made by the minister today.

They say higher class sizes. We say on this side of the House, we'll make the sacrifice for lower class sizes. On the other side of the House they're saying underfunding; we're saying no, there has to be an investment, investment for the right reasons. They say on the other side of the House that they would test teachers in some kind of phony political fashion. We say provide excellence in education, provide mentorship, provide support.

Last year we lost 4,400 teachers for reasons other than retirement. This is a government chasing the best teachers out of Ontario and it has the audacity to come forward today with a half-hearted proposal.

What the people of this province need, what the students of this province require, is for the adults to get their act together. They require a true partnership. In other countries it's been possible for the teachers, for the government, for the school boards, for the local authorities to sit down and work together. But to do that, you need a government that is committed to putting the interests of students first. It's not here today, but it will be here in two years.

1420

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Make no mistake about it: the latest Conservative bill is obviously designed to deflect attention away from the tax credit mess that they are at the moment immersed in. The Conservatives are attempting to ram through a bill, the tax credit for private schools, when two separate polls are against this initiative. They're doing it in spite of that. To deal with the fact that the polls are saying no to the tax credit to private schools, what have they done? They have said, "We're going to pass this bill, opposition parties, Ontarians, whether you like it or not, and we're going to pass it quickly, before the end of June. What are we going to do to help this process? We're going to change the rules so that the majority of deputants who come before the committee are deputants who support the government and not the other point of view."

That's how they've changed the process in our legislative hearings, so as to make sure that the only people who come in front of it are those who support the government -- a shameful act of this government. It's not enough for them to have power and be in government and it's not enough to be able to introduce bills that destabilize the education system; they want to control the education hearings as well. You can't have it all. At some point Ontarians are going to tell you, "Enough is enough."

This is what they're doing: every time they have a mess, a problem, they introduce yet another bill to try to cover up their problems. What do they do? They choose to beat up on those who are so frail, our education teachers and our education workers. They're going after them again and again, every time they're in trouble.

Last week the minister announced more teacher testing. We suggest it's the Tories on the other side who ought to be tested and not the teachers. The government claims they want to increase accountability in education, and yet the new teacher testing will not apply to one single private school teacher. In fact, this government plans to give hundreds of millions in public dollars to private schools, where teachers do not even have to be certified. All they have to do is be qualified individuals, but not certified teachers.

The minister claims this bill is about stability. It is precisely the Conservative government that has sought to create a crisis in education. You slashed funding by $2.4 billion when enrolment and inflation are factored in. You created labour instability with a funding formula guaranteed to force disruptions between boards and workers. Now you want multi-year agreements. Well, Minister, where is the multi-year funding the boards have said they desperately need to plan for the future? Once again you are demanding of school boards what you refuse to do yourself. You demand accountability, yet you refuse to be accountable.

You claim to want to promote stability, yet your Bill 160 gutted the Education Relations Commission. It was the Education Relations Commission that mediated and monitored contract negotiations. No longer. It was the Education Relations Commission that trained arbitrators. They no longer do that. What they do now, the only function left for them, is to advise on jeopardy during a strike. That's all they do. Yet now you want to expand the powers of the Education Relations Commission over all education workers. This is not designed to promote stability; it's designed to punish the lowest-paid workers in our schools, and it's designed to attack the right to strike for a fair contract.

What about your latest announcement re extracurricular activities? We thought you were working on a compromise. The compromise was to reduce the workload, which was the root of the problem, yet you haven't dealt with that. What's worse, the government is going to proclaim parts of Bill 74 to force boards to provide the extracurricular activities. But what are they going to do? Who will run the extracurricular activities? Will our kids be safe?

They're downloading the problem on to the boards of education and they're forcing boards of education to provide the extracurricular activities, but the only way they can do it is to increase class size. What kind of option, what kind of choice have you given boards of education? It's the same teaching load, but boards now have flexibility to do what? Increase class size in order to get some of those teachers to do the extracurricular activities. That is not a choice that the education workers were looking for.

I'm hoping, Ontarians, that you are awake enough to say to this government that you need to send them a message they will never forget.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 37th Parliament: Sarah Blackmore, Whitby-Ajax; Beckie Codd-Downey, Willowdale; Rebecca Cornell, Kenora-Rainy River; Adam Danchuk, Timiskaming-Cochrane; Anthony Gras, Sudbury; Ashley Hellyer, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound; Dustin Hughes, Timmins-James Bay; Leora Jackson, Thornhill; Matthew Leroux, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot; Reuben McRae, Durham; Sarah Mistak, Oakville; Joshua Morrison, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant; Kieffer Norton, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford; Ryan O'Hearn, Simcoe North; Marianne Soukas, Windsor-St Clair; Meera Srikanthan, Toronto Centre-Rosedale; Shauna Sunstrum, Nepean-Carleton; Christopher Tynan, Eglinton-Lawrence; and finally, Cameron Wood, Don Valley East.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions are for the Premier. Premier, we have finally been able to obtain a copy of your government's submission to the UN on the funding of private schools. It is, as you can see, a very lengthy and thorough document. Obviously a great deal of thought, effort and cost would have been put into this document. Most certainly it represents your government's considered and thoughtful opinion on the matter of funding of private schools.

I want to draw to your attention, Premier, one of the arguments made in this document before the UN, made on behalf of your government, and I quote, "Funding of private religious schools is likely to lead to increased public school closings and the reduction of the range of programs and services that any one public system can afford to offer." What you are saying here, to be very concise, is that this policy will hurt public education. Can you tell us why you are proceeding with a policy which you yourself argued in this document would hurt public education?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When we looked at other jurisdictions that had introduced some form of assistance for alternate schools, the two that I think were the closest parallel were Manitoba and British Columbia. In 1990, 5% of students were in private schools in Manitoba; 10 years later, 6.6% of students were in private schools. In British Columbia in 1990, 7.1% of students were in private schools; in 2000, 10 years later, 8.5% of students were in private schools.

It's interesting to note that in Ontario over the same period of time, in 1990, 3.4% were in private schools and 10 years later 4.6% were in private schools. So, in two jurisdictions that introduced actually more generous funding than we have introduced, there is not any variance from --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I've been looking for those kinds of comments and arguments inside this brief, and there is nothing to that effect whatsoever. In fact, you are very unequivocal. You say here, "Funding of private religious schools is likely to lead to increased public school closings and the reduction of the range of programs and services any one public system can afford to offer." You were specifically saying that this would hurt public education.

You go on to say, Premier, "Funding of private religious schools would result in the disruption and fragmentation of education in Ontario." Again, through this document filed before the UN, you were absolutely unequivocal, and you said much the same thing in a letter to me just a little over a year ago. Why is it, Premier, that you would bring in a policy now that you yourself argued would cause disruption and fragmentation of public education?

1430

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, the studies we've done of two other provinces versus Ontario showed absolutely no difference from the types of programs they introduced. That's why we introduced a similar type of program, a partial tax credit, not the UN resolution, no funding to private schools, but rather a tax credit on a partial basis to parents: so that would parallel the experiences we saw in British Columbia and Manitoba.

The United Nations, on the other hand, suggested a number of remedies, three things: (1) extend direct funding to other religious schools at the same rate of the public schools -- we rejected that; your party didn't, by the way, but we rejected that; (2) eliminate funding to Catholic schools -- we rejected that; your party didn't reject that, by the way; (3) extend religious instruction to public schools -- we rejected that; your party, by the way, did not reject that.

We rejected the UN solutions in favour of those --

The Deputy Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are flipping and flopping like a pickerel on a hot July day on a dock in Nipissing. Premier, if you have other studies that you would like to table in this Legislature, we'd be delighted to see them, but to the best of our knowledge all of your careful thought, consideration, effort and creativity went into this extensive legal document. You clearly said that to proceed with this kind of policy would hurt public education.

Beyond that, Premier, do you know what else you said? You said that to fund private religious schools would have a detrimental impact on the public schools and hence the fostering of a tolerant, multicultural, non-discriminatory society in the province. That's what you said, Premier. That's what you argued. You said that the very policy you're putting forth now would not only hurt public education, it would hurt society.

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: It's disappointing to me that the member opposite doesn't understand the difference of what British Columbia proposed and what was proposed in Manitoba versus what the United Nations proposed by way of full funding. We rejected the full funding argument. That in essence would be a voucher, which you seem to be in favour of.

I notice that as recently as May 30th the spokesperson for education for the Liberal Party said that recognizing fairness is to say the UN finding has some legitimacy. It may be Liberal policy that the UN has some legitimacy, that in fact there should be vouchers, there should be full funding, there should be direct funding. We rejected that. We rejected that before with the United Nations, and we rejected it in this budget. What we came forward with was a tax credit to parents to improve the options for choice.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've often been asked what advice I gave the Premier. I told them Mr McGuinty said --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: New question. Leader of the Opposition.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): From time to time the caddy would speak herself. Well, we're glad to hear from her today.

My question is for the Premier. I want to talk today about how your government is robbing our parents and our grandparents of their dignity and independence. We've obtained a copy of the Manitoulin-Sudbury Community Care Access Centre's plan for deficit reduction, a plan they are undertaking not of their own choosing but because of your own government's freeze on funding.

Do you know what they're being forced to cut back on, Premier, as a result of your budget freeze? They're talking about cutting back on incontinence supplies for our grandmothers and our grandfathers who happen to suffer from incontinence. Can you tell Ontario's frail elderly, those who are receiving home care today, those who are suffering from the embarrassment of incontinence, why is it that you're cutting them off their incontinence supplies?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can respond.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister without Portfolio [Health and Long-Term Care]): I'd like to say once again that we've been discussing CCACs for a number of days in the House, and we would know from the answer we gave the NDP a number of days ago that the dollars being invested in CCACs, in the area you speak of, have moved from $17 million to $20 million over the last three or four years. It's quite an investment. In fact the government of Ontario, the Mike Harris government, has invested in increased home care funding by 72% all across the province. We are investing in this because we believe it's an important asset. We're also doing operational reviews to look at how we might improve the services. We have continued to work to make sure that the seniors and the people of this province receive the home care they need in their communities.

Mr McGuinty: Madam Minister, here's what Bob Fera, the board chair for the CCACs, is saying in Sudbury: "I'm writing to advise you that serious reductions in home care have become necessary right across Ontario, due to inadequate funding and the fiscal policies of the current provincial government." He's not writing to thank you in a gracious manner for your additional funding; he's telling you that they're experiencing a funding shortfall. I think one of the most tragic and saddest aspects of all this is the fact that in today's Toronto Star, the minister himself reveals, "We don't have an answer, we don't have a plan, we don't have a policy, except to say the status quo is going to crash."

So the question I have for you, Madam Minister: if the minister himself doesn't have a plan to improve home care for our seniors in Ontario, maybe you now can stand up and tell us what your plan is to improve home care for our seniors.

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me say that the ministry certainly does have a plan. We have said we're going to go out and have a dialogue with the people of the province. The federal government has said they're going out to have a dialogue with the people of Canada. What's more important on this particular issue is that the previous Minister of Health commissioned a report to talk to stakeholders, to ask them what should be done with respect to CCACs. We have gone out. We have made some changes to CCACs. We have an action plan where we're moving forward in a number of areas to make sure we understand the best practices that can be done within CCACs. We have gone out to ensure we're developing information systems and a number of different things that have been asked for.

Our goal is to provide Ontarians with the best health care we can as close to home as possible. We continue to work for quality health care in the province, because that's the goal of the Mike Harris government.

Mr McGuinty: You and the government have been on the job now for six long and painful years. It is completely unacceptable for you to tell us today that you have no plan to improve home care for our parents and our grandparents. They played by the rules, they paid their taxes, they deserve their independence and they deserve to have their dignity respected. What you're doing now is you are quietly presiding over the downfall of home care in Ontario.

Not only that, not only are you not respecting their right to independence and dignity in their own homes, but you are being penny-wise and pound foolish. If you don't meet their needs inside the home, there's a much greater chance they'll end up inside the hospital, and that is much more expensive. Again, how can you stand there, six years on the job, and why is it your government still doesn't have a plan to improve home care for our parents and our grandparents?

1440

Hon Mrs Johns: I actually don't know where the Liberals get off on this. This government has invested more than $1 billion every year into health care, most of that going to senior citizens.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Order.

Hon Mrs Johns: Let me tell you that this government has invested 72% more dollars in home care, and that goes right into services for seniors in this province. We have moved from $1 billion in drug costs to $1.6 billion to make sure seniors have the drugs they need when they need them, and have listed more than 2,000 new drugs. We have invested and invested -- $1 billion more a year in health care services. You should be ashamed of yourself for scaremongering in health care as we invest and dialogue with the people of Ontario so they can decide where health care should be in this province.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last year, on December 20, in answer to a question here in the Legislature, you said, "This government has never ignored any report, any suggestion of anything that would jeopardize any citizen ... including [in] Walkerton, about water quality." In light of the revelations yesterday that the medical officer of health for Ontario and your own health minister wrote letters warning of the problems with water quality and advocating mandatory reporting of all water tests to the local medical officers of health -- in view of those warnings, Premier, can you explain the statement you made on December 20?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes. The statement speaks for itself, and I stand by it again today.

Mr Hampton: Those warning letters were explicit enough. In the 1996 business plan of the Ministry of the Environment, a business plan that went to cabinet for review and approval, it said your cuts "would increase the risk to human health and the environment." So in 1997 your Minister of Health and the medical officer of health repeated those warnings to you and asked you to guarantee there would be mandatory reporting of all water tests.

On the record, Premier, there are examples of three warnings. Were you or were you not aware of those warnings?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate your bringing this information forward. I will be happy to forward it, if you have not, to Justice O'Connor, who we've empowered to look at all the information to see what impact the commission determines any of this had to do with Walkerton. That's why we called the commission of inquiry, and we are prepared to make sure he has all the information he needs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): We talked to the Walkerton commission of inquiry this morning, and they said very clearly that there is nothing keeping any of you from answering any questions on this issue. They made that very clear.

So I'm going to put it to you again: long before Walkerton, your chief medical officer of health and your Minister of Health warned you about the dangers of privatizing all the water testing labs. If you had acted on that warning, fewer people in Walkerton would have become sick and lives could have been saved. A woman from Walkerton said on CBC Radio this morning that it was like the government pointed a loaded gun at the province and Walkerton got hit.

Premier, do not betray the people of Walkerton any more. Stop this cover-up and at least admit you were warned and did nothing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the member needs to withdraw the word "cover-up."

Ms Churley: I'm alleging a cover-up here. I can't withdraw that. That's allowed.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to withdraw the word "cover-up."

Ms Churley: Well, I withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: It's an interesting premise that you've drawn. Fortunately, to take partisanship out of this debate and have a reasonable, rational look at all the facts, we appointed Justice O'Connor to take a look at all the information. Of course, we've made thousands of documents available. He is free to review all of that and to interview whomever he wishes to interview. We will co-operate fully, of course, and then we'll leave it to Justice O'Connor to draw his conclusions.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. For months now, I have been trying to draw your government's attention to the plight facing Ontario seniors in long-term care. This weekend's newspapers exposed conditions in nursing homes where seniors are routinely tied down, left in urine-soaked beds in their own excrement for hours. And yet this morning, Premier, you said, and I quote, "Seniors should thank God they're in Ontario, where the best services are in the world."

I was shocked to hear that, Premier, and I want to tell you that you should work a shift in a long-term care facility like I am going to tomorrow, and you would see the truth. A recent study shows that Ontario has the least number of nursing hours per resident of any jurisdiction. We've proposed to you a comprehensive set of actions that need to be taken to turn things around. One element is to restore the minimum two and a quarter nursing hours per resident. Will you take our proposal to heart and implement, at minimum, two and a quarter nursing hours?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Any time any individual, any senior citizen at any time anywhere in any of our facilities in the province receives less than excellent care, it is a concern for us.

I think it is interesting to note that since we've taken office, we've increased funding to our long-term care facilities by an unprecedented $485 million; just this year another $69 million over last year. We have increased the base per diem funding rate for long-term care facilities, including funding for nursing and personal care, far in excess of what you provided when you were in government.

I don't want to be critical of you when you were in government, but the record speaks for itself: we are doing considerably more in continuing to add dollars and hours of personal care. Would we like to do more? We're taking a look at that. We appreciate your suggestions. You've got lots of suggestions for us when we're in government; you did nothing when you were in government.

Ms Lankin: You talk about increased per diems. In the province of Ontario, you spend less than half, on a per diem rate, for seniors in nursing homes than you spend on inmates in Ontario jails, and that is shameful, Premier.

Let's take a look at home care. I have been demanding accountability from your government for the service cuts that are being implemented right now. Every time I ask you about service cuts, you over there duck the question and talk about increased funding.

Well, let's look at the facts, Premier. I'm going to give you two examples -- only two, and there could be many more. Kingston CCAC delivered $26.5 million in services last year, funded by you. Now they're under orders to cut back to $25 million this year. Last year, East York CCAC spent $13.7 million, funded by you. This year you've cut that to under $12 million. So contrary to what you say, these are cuts.

Premier, these cuts are not just cruel, they're stupid. The seniors who lose these services will end up in more expensive services and hospitals. Will you restore the CCAC services funding so that seniors don't have to go without in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: When it comes to community care access centres, we have provided unprecedented new funding for them, and you know that; 72% for in-home services alone since we have taken office. The facts of the matter are that there is not a CCAC in the province that is receiving one cent less in their budget this year than they were budgeted last year.

1450

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that five of your ministers had been warned by the province's chief medical officer of health that your government had created this dangerous loophole in water testing regulations. Because of the changes you made, there was no longer any legal requirement on the part of anybody to notify the doctor on the ground, the local medical officer of health, that the water had been poisoned. The five sat on their hands.

Maybe that's not fair; one of them actually sent this matter off to a committee. The committee came back and filed a report. I've got a copy of the report here today, and do you know what the report said? They came to the conclusion that there was a dangerous loophole here, and they also said there should be a legal obligation imposed on the water operator to notify the medical officer of health in the event that the water is found to be dangerous to health.

So Richard Schabas, the medical officer of health, said, "Listen, you've got to pass a law in Ontario making the water tester tell the local medical officer of health if the water is deadly." Your own committee said, "Well, instead of the water tester, let's at least make the water operator have a legal obligation to tell the medical officer of health that the water is deadly." You ignored both warnings. Why is it, Premier, that you now refuse to take at least some responsibility for what happened in Walkerton?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Now is the time to co-operate fully with the inquiry. I appreciate any information you bring forward. I'm happy to share it with the commissioner.

Mr McGuinty: What we would have been looking for, Premier, was your co-operation and your dedication to ensuring we had on the books here in Ontario a law which imposed a minimum standard on the water testers, the private water testers, something you created here in the province of Ontario, to notify the local medical officer of health that something had gone terribly wrong, so that the medical officer of health could then act in a way to save lives. What you did, Premier, was that you and five ministers tossed this issue around like a hot potato that nobody wanted to hold on to for too long, and the net result was the tragedy in Walkerton.

I ask you again, Premier, why is it that nobody over there, when we're now aware that at least five of you had some warning about this dangerous loophole -- why is it that all five and you, Premier, ignored these warnings and refuse to take responsibility?

Hon Mr Harris: There is all kinds of information there, thousands and thousands of documents that we provided to the inquiry, and it will be up to Justice O'Connor to determine the relevance of any of those documents. We have given him full range, full powers, full opportunity and full co-operation. I'm surprised that, having agreed to that process -- at one point I think I offered to allow you and the NDP, through a committee process, to ask those questions and do that, and you said no: "No, we don't want anything to do with that. We want an impartial, independent judge to do that." So that's what we've done. We have an independent judge doing that, and we'll let him make the determination.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Solicitor General. In our area, we have different police forces, and we've had some difficulty deciding how they should be run. OCCOPS hasn't been a lot of help to us. In my area, I have the municipality of Meaford, which has its own local police force plus OPP. I have West Grey, which has OPP, and Durham. I also have Brockton, which has Walkerton and a police force of their own, plus they have OPP. The act limits them from deciding whether or not they can have hybrid policing. I would like the Solicitor General to give me his views and the ministry's views on hybrid policing.

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): With the proper governance structure, hybrid policing could benefit many Ontario communities. It would certainly allow some municipalities to retain cost-effective hybrid situations. Sudbury is a good example of this. In some cases, communities that have a historic relationship with a police service would be able to maintain that relationship. I must emphasize that the new adequacy standards for policing which came into effect earlier this year will ensure consistency in policing through each municipality. As such, I believe hybrid policing could be a choice that should be available to municipalities.

Mr Murdoch: From that answer, then, I can assume and I take it that you're in support of hybrid policing, so I guess my supplementary question would be, since my friend and my colleague to my right here has a private member's bill that he'll be introducing very soon and I believe you have seen, will you be in full support of his private member's bill?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Bill 59, if passed, would amend the Police Services Act to add hybrid policing to the list of policing options available to municipalities. It would mandate a single police service board in hybrid policing arrangements, ensuring consistency and preventing duplication. It would allow municipalities more choice. I believe Bill 59 is a good piece of legislation and certainly deserves the support of all members of the Legislature. Yes, I personally do support it.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier and it's in regard to home care. Let me begin by saying that the statement the Premier just made in the House about home care and about funding levels that have not decreased is simply inaccurate and completely false. Let me start there.

Premier, you ordered all of your ministries to come up with their own business plan for the year 2000-01. This is this year's business plan that you ordered for home care. Here's what they came back with. They said, "Ontarians can choose from an increasing range of health services that let them remain in their homes and in their communities." Premier, could you tell me how you can order a plan that comes out with increasing services to keep people in their homes and at the same time sit as Premier as community care access centres are forced to cut services, mostly to seniors and mostly to senior women?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, with funding increases of 72%, if there's any CCAC saying that, and I understand there are some that are saying that, we're very concerned. We're as concerned as you are and as concerned as seniors would be. That's why the minister has indicated that he is planning to meet with the CCACs. He has looked at a review of how they're operating, how efficiently they're operating, because with absolutely no budget cuts this year from last year and with a 72% increase over the first five years, clearly we ought to be providing more and more services to more and more people. Any logical person would say that should be the outcome with the funding decisions we've made. That may be the outcome, although I acknowledge there are some CCACs that, very early on into the year, are expressing some concerns. We don't know if it's a shoddy ploy for more money or whether it is legitimate --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Supplementary?

Mrs Pupatello: No, on a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the Premier to withdraw that inappropriate remark.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm not hearing what the member was excited about, so I'm having some difficulty.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: We'll just wait. Supplementary.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier just referred to my last question as some kind of a shoddy ploy. This is exactly what he is accusing me of, and I want him to withdraw.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. You know what, we're going to take five minutes to calm down a bit.

The House recessed from 1501 to 1506.

The Deputy Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Windsor West.

Mrs Pupatello: My supplementary is still for the Premier.

Premier, now you accuse the community care access centres, whose job it is, as volunteer boards and communities, to do the best they can for our seniors to allow them to have dignified lives in their homes, and today you say they should thank God every day they live in Ontario, (a), and (b) now you subject them to being called "shoddy ploys" by coming in here and suggesting they're not getting services they need.

Premier, your own review of the Ministry of Health, just tabled yesterday, says specifically that the population growth, aging growth, hospital restructuring, all of these things are causing increased demand for home care, and your funding does not keep up with this need. This report tabled yesterday said that the people are sicker when they're at home today than ever before and your funding is not keeping up with the needs of our parents and our grandparents. For our volunteers to do the best they can, we insist that you do this review --

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we have increased funding some 72% for home care to the CCACs since we took office.

I noted that the member raised the issue last week concerning the Niagara CCAC. It was interesting, if I could read the editorial that said when they looked at the facts -- this was when you called the member from Niagara stupid, I believe -- when the editor looked at the facts, the editor found that funding in Niagara had risen to $47 million from $21 million in 1995. They found that the overhead costs had gone up; staff costs went up 17.5%.

What I said was, while we are pouring more and more money into it, and we all have this concern, we have to be very, very careful to make sure that these requests are not a ploy for more money, they're not politics, because if it is, it's very shoddy. It's very shoddy if --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. New question.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I'm having great difficulty hearing the member for Durham.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I know you're well aware that we are in the midst of a knowledge-based economy, and furthermore I know that you're quite aware of how important it is for our researchers in Ontario to be able to work with the state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. Minister, could you tell us what our government is doing to help fund research infrastructure at our universities, as well as other research facilities in the province of Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank my colleague for the question. Ontario is home to some of the world's top researchers, scientists and research institutions, and I'm pleased to say that this is due in part to the tremendous increase in support this government has given since 1997 to programs that support research, development and innovation at our universities, hospitals and other research institutions.

One of the new programs is the $750-million Ontario investment in innovation trust, which this government established in 1999 to invest in leading-edge research equipment and facilities at Ontario's universities, colleges, hospitals and research institutes.

Recently, the board of that trust committed $90 million for a new initiative that will help ensure that Ontario's researchers have the tools necessary to compete with the best in the world. The new initiative is called the Ontario Distinguished Researcher Awards. The $90 million will provide infrastructure support and help us reverse the brain drain and make sure our researchers have the best equipment available.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for that, Minister. I know just how supportive you are of our scientific- and knowledge-based economy. You've made it very clear that innovation and investment are very important for our common success in the province. Perhaps you could explain how researchers can apply for these awards in Ontario.

Hon Mr Wilson: The details are being finalized with respect to the Ontario Distinguished Researcher Awards, but we do know that in order to leverage an additional $90 million from the federal government for research and development, our researchers will apply to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation for their first infrastructure funding and then the innovation trust, through the Distinguished Researcher Awards program, will consider applications in the province. That way we can double our money and make sure that we attract more of the world's best researchers to Ontario.

We've had tremendous success in the past few years. We need to keep up the momentum and ensure that Ontario becomes the number one place for research and development in North America, which is this government's goal.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, your government has just issued its third smog alert this year, and people are suffering all across the province.

During the last alert, when we told you that the Ontario Power Generation was aggravating smog by increasing production at the coal-fired plants to feed the US markets, you said then that the OPG curtails production at the coal-fired plants during smog alerts. Well, Minister, we asked the OPG. They said that on smog days they increase production at the coal-fired plants. Which is right, Minister, you or the OPG?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): As the single shareholder in Ontario Power Generation, I can assure you that we do curtail production, particularly at the Lakeview plant during smog days. In fact, we had lots of cases last year and the year before where Lakeview was not running at all during the worst smog days, yet we were being blamed for the pollution in Toronto.

Ms Churley: I have a letter dated May 15, 2001, from the OPG responding to an appeal to stop exporting power from the coal-fired plants during smog alerts. They say that they plan to continue to take advantage of US spot market demand. That means boosting dirty, smog-causing production at the coal-fired plants during smog days. It's very clear in this letter, but you just told me again that OPG curtails production at the coal-fired plants during smog alerts.

Will you tell the OPG to stop putting profits before human health? Will you order them, today, to curtail production and stop the export of dirty power from all of the coal-fired plants during smog days? Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, my answer stands. We do make every effort to curtail using those plants. Last year and the year before -- for a number of years now -- we've imported more electricity from the United States while we're recovering our nuclear plants. In order to keep the lights on in Mississauga, though, every once in a while Lakeview has to be started up. When there's a smog alert, though, we do our very best to make sure that we not use that plant, that we use the cleaner Nanticoke plant first and all our resources in our nuclear plants first before we have to start up our dirty coal-fired plants. That is the policy of the government, that is the policy of OPG and we do our very best. I would not want to have to explain to the people of Mississauga, though, why there's a blackout on any given day because we failed to live up to our obligations to deliver electricity to the people of Ontario.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Premier. A few moments ago, you accused CCACs of being part of a shoddy ploy to get more money, and if the Premier wants to correct the record and if he thinks I've got it wrong, I'd be delighted to hear from him in that regard.

Premier, you should understand that when we talk about our CCACs, all 43 of them are directed by elected volunteers: people who are community-minded, people who dedicate themselves to the care of our parents and our grandparents in every community right across Ontario. You have had the benefit now of a short cooling-off period. I will now ask, on behalf of all of those volunteers who work on behalf of our parents and grandparents, that you apologize to them unequivocally here and now.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Perhaps I could repeat some of the challenges that are being faced with the massive increase in money. CCAC funding, as you know, has gone up some 72% -- $700 million to now over $1.1 billion.

I gave you the example of a CCAC that was raising concerns in Niagara. Here is what the independent third-party editor had indicated: funding had gone from $21 million to $47 million, staff salaries increased 17.5%, but no more money was going into actual home care. This is a concern to us.

I said very clearly, and I repeat now for the record very clearly, we have to determine, is this just a ploy for more money that can be wasted? If it is, it's a shoddy ploy. If it is legitimate, we're prepared --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you are now making it a regular habit of yours to demean the office of Premier. The only thing that is shoddy here is your continuing disrespect for the people of Ontario.

What I'm asking you to do, once more, on behalf of those people who dedicate themselves to the care of our parents and our grandparents, those volunteers who work for our CCACs, whom you have just demeaned here in one fell swoop, I'm asking you, Premier, to stand up and apologize to those people who dedicate themselves to our parents and our grandparents.

Hon Mr Harris: I don't think any government has done more for seniors than this government has, particularly in the area of massive increases in drug costs, in home care and in building of long-term-care beds and of those facilities. But we clearly have some challenges and some problems out there whereby we're putting millions and millions of dollars more money in and we're not getting as good results as we should get. This is a challenge and it is something we are looking at. If it is a simple ploy for money, it's a shoddy ploy; if it's legitimate, we'll look at it.

Let me say this: I'm happy to repeat that and I'll tell you why. What I have brought to this office of Premier is telling it like it is, honestly, up front; something that's been lacking from the two parties opposite in this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

New question, the member for Ottawa West-Nepean.

1520

INVESTIGATION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean): My question is for the Solicitor General. On July 31, 1998, Detective Sergeant Pat Hall of the OPP, the lead investigator in the Project Truth investigation in Cornwall, signed a receipt acknowledging documentation served upon him by the citizens' committee of that city. As a result of that evidence, an additional 40 charges were laid by Project Truth, following July 31, 1998. These documents are the same documents that were served on two branches of our government on April 8, 1997. July 31, by my calculation, was 67 weeks after April 8. My question is this: as the top police officer in the province, would you explain to this House, to the people of Cornwall and to the people of Ontario, particularly those serviced by the OPP, how this could have come to pass?

Hon David Turnbull (Solicitor General): Information received by the Ontario government relating to any criminal activity is turned over to the appropriate police service. The Solicitor General does not, and must not, direct the day-to-day operations of any police service, including the OPP. Police must be able to conduct their investigations free from political interference. This is a fundamental principle of the justice system.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Turnbull: I find it passing strange that a former Solicitor General would be saying what he is saying. You know it is inappropriate for the Solicitor General to be involved in day-to-day operations.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Order. I remind members that I need your assistance to maintain order in here, and it would be very useful if members addressed their questions and responses through the Chair as the standing orders require.

Supplementary?

Mr Guzzo: Also to the Solicitor General: two weeks ago in this House, your colleague the Attorney General refused to speculate on how long it might take to provide you and the Ontario Provincial Police with legal opinions on charges still pending. Mr Miller of the OPP has been reported as stating that he has been waiting for over one and a half years for an opinion on one file. During a recent trial in Cornwall, it was reported that all OPP briefs with regard to these matters were dated 1999 or earlier. This means that at the end of this month all of these opinions will have been awaited for a period of one and one half years.

Minister, you are the client here and the Attorney General is your lawyer. I've canvassed the lawyers in our caucus to see if any of them have known of any situations where we've kept the client waiting one and a half years for an opinion, and I have been assured they know of no such situation. My question is simple: I want to know how long you're prepared to wait, three months, three years or, as in the case of the training school debacle, are we going to wait over three decades?

Hon Mr Turnbull: Legally such an investigation has got to be thorough. Police and crown attorneys must be able to make determinations free from interference from politicians. It would be most inappropriate for me or in fact any member of the government to direct the police or crown attorneys to lay criminal charges against any person. I'd like to remind all members that the book is not closed on the possibility of additional charges.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, today you came to this House with this bill and in it what you are essentially doing is continuing the tradition established by your predecessors. You think you're going to fix problems in education, many of them of your own making, by ordering people around. You're going to boss them, you're going to make them do things and, in this case, you're going to get three-year contracts just because you say so.

The track record of your government is abysmal: five times as many days lost -- 1.7 million during your government versus the years before. You expect to come up with three-year deals. This year you gave the school boards $10 million less to operate with than they had last year.

Minister, I want to ask you today -- because we want to see whether or not this is a bill of some significance or an intention of any kind on your part -- will you provide to the school boards of this province three years' worth of stable, adequate funding for excellent education? Will that come from you today along with this bill?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): First of all, if the Liberal Party's position is that annual bargaining is a good thing for the students, they should say so. But we've heard very clearly from students, from parents, and from teachers, as a matter of fact, that annual contracts have created a great deal of disruption, a great deal of hassle and a great deal of stress for all involved. Some federations, for example, have tried very hard to do longer-term agreements with school boards, and some school boards have done that. We have had unions and school boards that have had two- and three-year agreements. They've been able to make that work. They've said that was a helpful thing for students and teachers. We agree. This legislation is asking all school boards to do longer-term agreements, three-year agreements, to use the 360 million net new dollars to the education system this year to reach responsible, fair agreements.

Mr Kennedy: It is extremely unfortunate that you had a chance to put forward something that would actually make a difference to students and instead you're continuing on a line of attack. In the same bill today, you take away power from the Ontario College of Teachers. You show disrespect to every working teacher in this province by taking away from there the ability to set standards, which every other profession in this province does.

Minister, you have been neglectful in not defending public education. Your own study from the UN says that the diminishment of the range of programs and services in the public system that we will be able to afford will occur because of your private school vouchers.

Last year, under your watch, 4,400 teachers left teaching in this province due to your particular policies, for reasons other than retirement. The students need peace and they need stability. Will you do something positive? Will you provide for the funding? Will you convene a meeting of the stakeholders to make sure that people have a chance to really have peace? Minister, will you --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked.

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, to the honourable member, I meet regularly with all of our stakeholders. As a matter of fact, I had meetings last week and I had meetings again this week. I continue to do that as part of the job.

Secondly, there has been no change in the authority of the Ontario College of Teachers. We should make that clear. But do you know what? The honourable member's party just voted against a piece of legislation that implements what the Royal Commission on Learning recommended: mandatory recertification for teachers. Do you know what the Liberal Party's policy is? All new teachers will be required -- a rule, mandatory, the Liberals say -- to pass certification exams. Every new teacher will be required to meet a rigorous entrance exam. "We will insist that all teachers continue to improve their teaching skills," said Dalton McGuinty. So here they are, "Let's have recertification, let's have that for teachers," and then they voted against it. The Liberals voted against it, mostly --

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

1530

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): After the flopping of the halibut from the Liberals, I'm not sure what is happening here.

Interjections.

Mr Spina: It's like a flounder on the beach.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Do you have a question and to which minister?

Mr Spina: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Minister, yesterday the member for Sault Ste Marie made a number of accusations of government inaction in his riding. As a former parliamentary assistant, as a person who was born in Sault Ste Marie, as a person who was raised in the Soo, who still has family there and I spend a lot of my personal time there, I've seen positive impacts of this government on that community. Maybe you could outline for the House some of what those impacts were.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Brampton Centre for his question. As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I've been fighting for projects that will stimulate the northern economy and keep the best and brightest in the north at home.

Since October 1996, the Mike Harris government, through the northern Ontario heritage fund, has committed over $16 million to 18 projects in Sault Ste Marie. Importantly, this funding has leveraged an additional $33.4 million and has helped to create 120 direct and 259 indirect jobs in Sault Ste Marie.

We also provided a contribution of $25,000 toward the Sault Ste Marie innovation centre study, and the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology approved $1.2 million toward the GIS component of the technology facility. As well, Premier Harris announced $2.7 million --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton Centre.

Mr Spina: Thank you, Minister. Obviously the member from Sault Ste Marie doesn't acknowledge a nickel of the investments that this government puts into that community.

Now he claims that the community needs some extra attention because of the Algoma Steel restructuring. That's an important economic element to that city, and I know the Speaker is also interested because there are people working in that steel mill from his riding. Minister, what are we going to be doing to try to help the community of Sault Ste Marie with its economic development?

Hon Mr Newman: We've made many investments in the Sault Ste Marie area on behalf of the Mike Harris government to build strong northern communities in Sault Ste Marie and across northern Ontario. In fact, last Friday I attended a conference of Great Lakes and St Lawrence mayors in Sault Ste Marie, and had the opportunity to announce a $100,000 heritage fund contribution toward tourism in the Sault Ste Marie area. I think Mayor John Rowswell of Sault Ste Marie ought to be commended for doing an outstanding job in hosting this conference of his colleagues from across Canada and the United States.

When you look at the unemployment rate in Sault Ste Marie under the NDP in 1993, it was 18.5%. Under the Mike Harris government it has dropped by more than 10%, to a low of 8.2% in February of this year. Furthermore, the NDP removed $60 million from the northern Ontario heritage fund in order to make their books look better prior to the election.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier, and I want to return to his comments about community care access centres. Today, you said in this House that your government has provided not one penny less in funding to community care access centres. I provided you with the example of Kingston, where you're providing $1.5 million less this year than you funded last year. I provided you with the example of East York, where you're providing $1.7 million less this year than you provided last year. Let me give you the example of Manitoulin-Sudbury, where this year you're going to be providing $22.5 million. Last year you gave them $23.3 million.

Those are real dollars that provided real services to real seniors. Those real dollars are being cut, and those real services are being cut. If you want to review the operation of CCACs, here's another way to do it: provide the funding for the needs-based budgets that have been identified, and then do your review. Don't do your review at the expense of cuts to services to seniors. Please, please, Premier, apologize to CCACs and restore that funding.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I stand by the statement that there is no budget this year that is any less than it was budgeted last year for any of the CCACs. I think you're talking apples to oranges. You may be talking about some of the deficits. I don't know what you're talking about. The money that we budgeted for CCACs this year is the same as it was last year, and that's the same for all CCACs.

In addition to that, there are some challenges. We understand that and we appreciate that. We have some CCACs that got massive amounts of new money but were not providing more services to our seniors, and we are taking a look at that.

Quite frankly, all is not perfect out there with the delivery of home care. I think when situations like that arise it behooves the minister to take a good look at how the CCACs are operating.

Now, we did have governments here from 1985 to 1995 --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Petitions.

PETITIONS

NURSES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need. The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; and ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform decisions."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government plans to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I support this fully.

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Oakville, Gary Carr, and myself as the member for Mississauga South. Obviously, the member for Oakville, being the Speaker, is not able to present petitions.

This is a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas Sithe Energies Canadian Development Ltd is actively pursuing the development of an 800 MW electricity generating facility;

"Whereas the 14-hectare parcel of land on which the station is proposed is located on the east side of Winston Churchill Boulevard in the Southdown industrial district of Mississauga;

"Whereas Sithe has stated its commitment to an open dialogue with communities where it has a presence and to being responsive to the concerns of the same; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Ontario citizens and to determine how this facility will impact those who live in its immediate, surrounding area,

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

"That the government of Ontario direct the Ministry of the Environment to undertake a formal environmental assessment of the Sithe project."

I am happy to add my name to this petition.

NURSES

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the nurses of Ontario are seeking relief from heavy workloads, which have contributed to unsafe conditions for patients and have increased the risk of injury to nurses; and

"Whereas there is a chronic nursing shortage in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has failed to live up to its commitment to provide safe, high quality care for patients;

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

"We demand the Ontario government take positive action to ensure that our communities have enough nursing staff to provide patients with the care they need. The Ontario government must:

"Ensure wages and benefits are competitive and value all nurses for their dedication and commitment; ensure there are full-time and regular part-time jobs available for nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and the community; ensure government revenues fund health care, not tax cuts; ensure front-line nurses play a key role in health reform decisions."

I happily affix my signature to this petition.

1540

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and will deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure;

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to withdraw its plan for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas on September 27, 1997, Cambridge was legally designated underserviced, having an insufficient number of family doctors for its citizens; and

"Whereas thousands of men, women and children in Cambridge are not cared for by their own family physician and this unfortunate situation exists in other Ontario communities;

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

"That the Ontario government substantially increase the number of family doctors in Cambridge and other underserviced areas by:

"1. Permitting substantial numbers of qualified and highly competent foreign-trained family doctors the right to practise in Cambridge and other underserviced areas in Ontario; and

"2. Substantially increase the number of available student spaces in Ontario medical schools and require new graduates to serve in Cambridge and other underserviced areas in Ontario."

I attach my name thereto.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will create two-tier education;

"Whereas the government's plan is to give parents a $3,500 enticement to pull their kids out of public schools;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will encourage the growth of a segregated society of narrowly focused interests;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools will steal money from an already cash-starved public system and deliver public money to special interests who do not have to account for its use;

"Whereas tax credits for private schools effectively create a voucher system in Ontario;

"Whereas the Harris government has no mandate to introduce such a measure;

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

"We call upon the government of Ontario to withdraw its plans for two-tiered education and properly fund public education in Ontario."

I sign my name and provide this to our page, Ashley.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Come on up here, Adam. You're going to take it to the table for me.