Journal des débats 1997-avril-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a number of occasions I have spoken of the great injustice that this government is committing on those Ontarians who live in island communities as a result of Mike Harris's decision that municipalities should assume full funding responsibility for the operating and financing of ferry services that link those islands to the mainland. It means that in my riding, Amherst Island, Wolfe Island and Howe Island will in effect have to increase their taxes eightfold in order to pay for those services.

You can well imagine my disgust and anger at receiving a letter from the Minister of Transportation just yesterday in which he states, "Let me remind you that the province is not reducing any transportation services." They're not only reducing the transportation services; they're reducing the only services these people have to the mainland.

He goes on to say, "We are reducing duplication of the delivery of local transportation services to ensure Ontario taxpayers have fair, efficient and accountable public services." Duplication? There's only one ferry that links each one of these islands to the mainland.

These decisions are callous; they are reprehensible; they have caused a great amount of distress and anxiety for the people of these islands. Why don't the minister and the government do the right thing and accept their responsibility, that they are responsible for the governing of all of the people of Ontario? Put the funding of these ferries back into the provincial budget. These people demand it; all Ontarians demand it.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Bill 107 is part of the downloading from the province on to municipalities. It transfers 25% of Ontario's water supply system to towns and cities. During public hearings on the bill, some presenters asked if Bill 107 is about privatizing Ontario's water and sewer systems.

Yes, it is. In fact, Bill 107 provides the terms for privatization, which provides generous incentives. For example, companies that buy public water and waste water facilities will have access to all properties connected with those facilities and will not be required to pay interest from provincial grants. Presenters said it would be impossible for municipalities to take on the added expense of water and waste water facilities without either raising municipal taxes or selling off the facility to a private company.

In England, privatization of water services led to outrageous increases in the price of water, loss of water services to low-income people, putting their health and their children's health at risk, outbreaks of disease, loss of jobs, and the failure to reinvest the profits into crumbling infrastructures. This must not be allowed to happen in Ontario.

I urge the minister to amend the legislation to specifically prohibit privatization of our water and waste water facilities.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, will, if passed into law, reduce school board bureaucracy and focus resources on the individual student and student achievement in the classroom.

However, don't just take my word for it. It was former NDP Education Minister Dave Cooke who, on May 5, 1993, had this to say: "We need to take a look at the number of school boards that we have in this province, we need to take a look at how much money is being spent in the classroom versus how much money is being spent in administration and in school boards and...we need to put more money into the classrooms instead of in structures...." On December 7, 1993, Dave Cooke said, "Millions of dollars can and need to be saved in our education system." On November 23, 1994, Dave Cooke said he was ready to bring in legislation to reduce the number of school boards in Ontario.

Even the current leader of the official opposition said on January 13, 1997, "There is generally a fairly broad support for reduction in school boards...."

It should be clear to everyone in this House that our children's education and their futures are too important to let partisan differences prevent us from working together on Bill 104 to make students, not bureaucrats, the focus of an affordable, world-class education system.

DIRECTED BLOOD DONATIONS

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an issue and a concern that affects all Ontarians. There was a policy established by the Canadian Red Cross on March 17 that would not allow anyone who doesn't speak English or French to donate or store their own blood in case they need it for surgery. As a result of that policy, one of my constituents yesterday was turned away, and hundreds and thousands of Ontarians and Canadians have been turned away since March 17.

We're calling upon the Minister of Health in this province to direct the Red Cross as well as the other officials across this province to change this policy. There must be some flexibility and some room for interpreting services to be available. As the policy now stands, individuals who walk in with a family member or a relative to interpret for them are still not allowed to donate blood or to store their own blood. This is a practice that is unacceptable.

I commend the Red Cross for the steps it has taken to improve the safety of the blood supply in this country, but I believe this step goes too far and frankly millions of Canadians will be unentitled to give or store their own blood if this is not changed. I call upon the Minister of Health in this province to work with the federal government and the Red Cross to change what is clearly a discriminatory policy and one that is negatively affecting millions of Canadians.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The government is at it again. They're not listening to the people of Ontario. They're just moving ahead with their agenda and implementing things that will have a massive and negative impact on communities.

Just a couple of months ago the community of Sault Ste Marie, under the leadership of the mayor, had a forum at city council. It went on for two nights, literally 40 or 50 presentations on health care and the impact of the download, the cutting of money to the hospitals in our area and the stories that were beginning to evolve. We were all excited by the content of the input, by the positive, constructive suggestions that were made and the overall tone of that exercise.

The member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, and I sent an invitation to the Minister of Health to meet with this group, the forum leadership and some members of my community, to hear the results of this report, to hear from the people of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma what they felt will be in the best interests of them and of health care and their families. But alas, as has become the trend in this place, the minister has said no, he doesn't want to meet.

He's already made up his mind. He knows what he's going to do. He understands very well that this is not about improving health care, this is not about providing the best of health care to the citizens of Algoma and Sault Ste Marie. This is about cutting, about taking money out. He will not meet with the mayor and the forum leadership and the community of Sault Ste Marie about this very important issue, and that's a shame.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm proud to advise the House that April 20 to 26 is National Organ Donor Week. Organ and tissue donation represents the gift of life from one individual to another. One person's gift may benefit a number of people. For more than 1,200 people in Ontario, receiving an organ or tissue transplant is the only hope for a healthy, productive life, or life at all.

1340

Medical advances have made it possible to successfully transplant the following organs: kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas and small bowel, as well as these tissues: cornea, skin, bone and heart valves.

People are dying because of a critical shortage of donated organs. Transplantation is a proven, effective medical treatment for patients who have no other alternatives. What you can do now affects lives in the future. I'm asking everybody in the House to sign a donor card, discuss it with your family and ask them to respect your wishes. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hundreds of families who have already made donations that have made a difference in the lives of many other people.

If anyone requires further information, they should contact the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program at 1-800-263-2833.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The grape and wine industry, which produces millions of dollars of economic activity and thousands of jobs directly and indirectly for Ontario, is being placed in jeopardy by a proposal by the Ontario government to have estate wineries assessed as industrial properties.

These wineries are situated on land zoned agricultural, since there's a large farm component to these operations. Land zoned agricultural and buildings on it do not have access to services available to businesses on land zoned industrial. As well, wineries within the Niagara Escarpment plan are justifiably subject to strict land use restrictions.

As a result of this policy of the Conservative Harris government, a number of wineries are facing staggering tax increases which could amount to thousands of dollars, a penalty which may well make the difference between continuing their business operations and shutting their doors. At the very least, this regressive and ill-considered tax change will discourage the opening of new wineries or the expansion of existing operations.

I am calling upon the Harris government to abandon this unwise and punitive measure affecting estate wineries in Ontario and to return to the farm assessment model, which is far more appropriate to estate wineries and consistent with similar operations across the province.

Tourism in the grape-growing and wine-producing area of Ontario is growing in economic importance. Wineries continue to provide good jobs, as do grape-growing farm operations. The fate of our grape and wine industry is in the hands of the provincial government. Only the abandonment of this disastrous taxation policy is acceptable.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I just had the opportunity and the honour to meet with a group of parents and students from Bowmore Road school in my riding. The parents' representative of the home and school and the parents' council and many students were here today to give me what amounts to over 2,000 cards and letters that have been signed, and many more signatures from the school-parent community on a petition, all directed to the Premier and the Minister of Education with respect to changes in our education system, and in particular Bill 104.

The card to the Premier and the minister reads:

"You promised your cuts would not touch our students' classrooms. Keep your promise. Keep the present level of funding. Schools belong to the community. Keep the community's tax dollars in the community. Let the community decide what's best for their schools.

"Children matter. Quality public education matters."

The letters set out their concerns about the rapid and massive changes that are taking place and that they will jeopardize the quality of education for our children by not recognizing that our children's classrooms do include libraries and librarians, music and phys-ed teachers, caretakers, principals and secretaries, remedial, special education and ESL programs, teaching assistants and psychological support -- many issues of concern.

These parents of one school in one neighbourhood have gathered over 2,000 signatures urging the government to cease the insanity, to keep our education a public system.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Earlier this morning a media conference was held here at Queen's Park by a group of teachers, students, parents and trustees. They came to this Legislature to tell this government what they really think of Bill 104, and this is what they had to say:

Trustee Bob Dobson said he believes Bill 104 will eliminate school board bureaucracy and result in more money being placed directly towards the classroom.

Trustee Tina Rotondi-Molinari said Bill 104 will result in funding equity for all students in Ontario, and that while other governments talked about reforming education, the government will act accordingly.

Todd Blimke, a student, said he believes 104 will finally cut down on administrative red tape and put more money towards classroom education.

Teacher Gary O'Dwyer said Bill 104 will refocus the education system back on students in the classroom. He also complimented the education minister for his openness and accessibility throughout the consultative process around Bill 104.

Parents Mary Smeenk, Kathleen Pinto and Eve Peterson applaud this bill for bringing accountability to bear on school curricula.

Ontarians are telling us that Bill 104 makes winners of all stakeholders in our education system, including taxpayers, parents and, most of all, students in the classroom.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LOBBYIST REGISTRATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I am pleased to announce two new initiatives that support the government's commitment to manage its activities openly, fairly and transparently.

Taxpayers have the right to know that dealings undertaken by the government will serve to advance the public interest.

We are moving to become the first Canadian province to enact a lobbyist registration law. If the legislation is passed as planned in the fall, this public registry will include a list of all people and firms who are paid to lobby the government. This will allow taxpayers to have open access to information about companies and individuals seeking to influence government decision-making.

Times have changed since existing conflict-of-interest rules were established. The government now deals with a variety of organizations as we look for ways to improve delivery of services.

It's a matter of good practice to ensure that we establish clear rules that reflect this new world and ensure accountability on the part of government. For this reason we are establishing a new conflict-of-interest policy for senior public officials and senior public servants to reflect our wide range of relationships with other government organizations and the private sector.

The new policy covers individuals involved in a range of activities, including contracting out, franchising and public-private partnerships.

New provisions will expand and reinforce existing rules in the Public Service Act which govern public servants in their day-to-day activities. Ministers are already covered by the Members' Integrity Act, which has rules consistent with those being put in place as of today.

People in positions of authority who have access to confidential or insider information cannot use it to gain an unfair advantage or put the public interest at risk. They may be restricted for up to 12 months from accepting jobs with organizations they had significant dealings with as a government employee within the previous 12 months.

Individuals are also prohibited from switching sides if they were involved in a government transaction. For instance, if they had worked on a government tender, they cannot then go to work for any of the bidders for that tender before the contract is awarded. Potential conflict situations will be reviewed and ruled on by an impartial third party.

Both of these initiatives, lobbyist registration and conflict-of-interest provisions, will ensure that the process of government is kept open, fair and transparent and will ensure that the public interest and taxpayers' investment continue to be protected.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): The Liberal Party applauds the government that would bring forward any kind of legislation that would be preventive in terms of ruling on conflict of interest, in particular in light of the Conservative government that is now in office in Ontario.

Very specifically, the government is having to look at legislation that governs lobbyists for one reason: You have been absolutely inundated by lobbyists over the last two years, and I ask you why. Why? Because this is a government that is absolutely not listening to the very people who call on a regular phone and want to talk to the government.

1350

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Isn't it interesting how sensitive the caucus is on that side of government? May I say to the members opposite that you in fact may be the first ones to have to hire your own lobbyist to lobby your own cabinet, to lobby your own Premier. In fact I may have to hire a lobbyist. I've been begging for a meeting with the Premier to discuss very relevant issues in my own riding and can't get the Premier -- he can't possibly be afraid of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I may have to hire a lobbyist.

We're very happy to see the kind of legislation you're putting in place -- any of it would be good. Now let's talk about regular folk across Ontario who have tried for months to speak to their government members about legislation that they're putting forward. Let's talk about Bill 84 and the firefighters. How many lobbyists do the firefighters have to hire to get you to understand reason and the damaging effects of Bill 84 across Ontario? Do the families who have disabled children at home in Durham region need to hire a lobbyist so that their own member, Minister of Community and Social Services Janet Ecker, would actually respond to the people in her own riding?

We have any number of examples of members who don't listen to their own constituents at home. Why would the minister today, the Management Board Chair, not bring forward some kind of legislation that would deal with the ministers themselves? A high embarrassment for the Ontario government when a Minister of Finance -- "Eves Understated Travel Expenditures." Why would we not see some kind of regulation come forward that would actually put the ministers on the hook to answer for the kind of expenses they are making in the face of wide cuts across the board in every ministry? Why would this not happen?

I think it's very ironic that yesterday all these order paper questions were tabled with the government -- order papers that ask specific questions about providing detailed accounts of expense claims submitted by every minister and their senior staff, that in fact will tell us whether there are other ministers such as the Minister of Finance, who allows his senior staff to submit expenses on the minister's behalf.

Is this the kind of embarrassment that we have to face as Ontario legislators? Whether it's part of our party or not, this is a government that represents us all and a Globe and Mail article that goes across the country. This is the kind of action that we would prefer to see the government leading towards, stopping this kind of nonsense that is happening currently in this government.

Let's talk a little bit about some kind of regulation concerning ministries and the type of advertising that they can run. In the face of the massive cuts in health care, we see the Ministry of Health wasting taxpayers' dollars running government advertising right across Ontario, so that I get the call from the 76-year-old woman who spent hours waiting in the emergency room to explain to her why she watches Mike Harris standing outside of a hospital wasting her taxpayers' dollars on government ads. But today you come forward with legislation that deals with lobbyists.

I have a question for the Management Board Chair. Is this going to be a retroactive position with this legislation? When our leader Dalton McGuinty advanced questions to the Premier on this very issue, at that point we already knew, Paul Rhodes gone, Perry Martin gone, Ed Arundell gone, Mitch Patten gone. When we look at the key company that is today running the maintenance contract for MTO in southwest -- it's called IMOS -- and look at the key individuals who are running that company today, every one of them is a key senior bureaucrat from the Ministry of Transportation. What kind of a link is there for those people coming from the ministry and moving into the private sector? Key positions -- those are positions that are not part of a consulting firm, but they are part of the companies that have already won lucrative contracts from this very government. All of this throws a great deal of suspicion on this very government.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to respond to the Chair of Management Board and to indicate to him that we support the principle of lobbyist registration and conflict-of-interest provisions for senior public servants. It's a necessary step to take.

I would reinforce what he says in reference to the fact that we live in a new world now. I certainly agree that with this government in office it is a new world when it comes to dealing with lobbyists. I sat on the resources development committee last week to talk about privatization of sewer and water services, and I could see the lobbyists just drooling in the audience, wondering how they were going to get in on the action. It is important that we have registration of lobbyists so it's more out in the open than it is now, because right now it is all behind closed doors.

Never in the history of this province have we needed guidelines for lobbyists like we do now. Whether we're talking about sewer and water services, whether we're talking about LCBO, whether we're talking about Ontario Hydro, can you imagine the profits that await the private sector if they get their hands on the water services of this province, if they get their hands on the LCBO and the profits that lie therein, or on Ontario Hydro? There are enormous potential profits. For that reason, this government knows that it would not have dared to move forward with privatization without registration for lobbyists.

Interjection: Will you support it?

Mr Laughren: As I indicated at the beginning, yes, I will support this registration once we have seen the details in it. We anticipate that next week the minister for privatization will be coming forward with his long-awaited framework for privatization and we'll see how that will tie in with the registration for lobbyists as well.

What happened with one example of privatization was in the Chatham district where the Minister of Transportation privatized the maintenance of highways in that area. It was a $27-million contract, which very effectively shut out all the small contractors who anticipated that they could be part of the action of the new world of contracted-out services by this government. The Minister of Transportation wrote the requirements in such a way that only the large operators were allowed to get in. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, it was Miller Paving that won the award in Chatham; I think that's correct. That's hardly a small contractor. You wonder who's going to be out there looking after the interests of the small contractors as privatization really swings into full gear.

We will be supporting these provisions as long as they are transparently clear for everyone. I would simply encourage lobbyists out there who are sitting waiting to see what they have to do not to wait too long. Get in right now. Phone the four backbenchers who were fired from the parliamentary assistants' jobs. Phone them right away. Get on the list, because those people need the help of a lobbyist more than any large corporation ever will.

1400

I would encourage the lobbyists out there to get busy, get their feet wet, get their foot in the door by starting with those four poor, fired, backbench, former parliamentary assistants. Those are the people who will need the help, because they were treated with such disrespect by the Premier.

I encourage the lobbyists to get on board and follow the rules as they're going to be laid out. I haven't seen them yet. All we've seen is the announcement from the minister. I think following that will be the framework for privatization. When we see those two together, side by each, as they say, then we'll have a better understanding to what extent this government is serious about regulating the lobbyists in this province.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to draw your attention to Hansard, page 7518, April 2. You will recall that on that day I raised a point of order with you related to a memo that had come into my possession regarding a meeting that was planned in southwestern Ontario for Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone, the co-chairs of the proposed Education Improvement Commission, a meeting which was to take place on April 9. I understand that meeting did take place.

I pointed out at that time that there was a handwritten memo written on this memorandum by a Mr Jack, who is the senior person in the Ministry of Education regional office, asking for names of representatives who would attend the meeting and stating that the deadline for this information was March 26, the day we would be dealing with clause-by-clause of Bill 104.

I pointed out at that time that the bill was not in place; the memo did not even use the term "proposed Education Improvement Commission." I asked you if this did not in any way seem to be contempt of the House, since the House has not yet, even now, passed Bill 104 into law. This meeting took place and other similar meetings have taken place. There was one in Ottawa a week or so ago.

At the time, Speaker, you thanked me for the submission and you said you would take the opportunity to review this and report back at a later date. The date is later.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Normally when I say that and you bring it back to my attention, I would have some rationale for the length of time it has taken to report back. I would explain at this time that I don't have any rationale other than that I forgot. I give you my undertaking that I will report back with due dispatch.

ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have another point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Another point of order, different?

Mr Wildman: Yes, a different point of order. As you know, Speaker, ministries of the government of Ontario as well as the government's many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through ministers of the cabinet. Standing order 39(a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the registrar general, the Vital Statistics Act. The filing requirement for this is: "The registrar general shall, after the close of each calendar year, submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a report as to the number of births, marriages, deaths, still-births, adoptions, divorces and changes of name registered during the preceding calendar year and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The 1996 report is still outstanding. It has not been submitted to this House. I'm not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with any explanation for the delay, so I would request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not yet been filed.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I will simply say that there may be a few of these reports, and I suspect this afternoon we may have the opportunity to hear of a few reports. My recollection is that a great number of these reports -- there are literally hundreds of them from various agencies, boards, ministries etc -- have in fact been printed and brought forward.

There are some others, some dating back to before 1990 during a Liberal government and many dating back to the NDP government, which has raised the point here today, a few dating back certainly into its term. I will say categorically that the reason there are a few reports -- some from the Liberal era, some from the NDP era, a few from the current government's era -- that have not been brought in is that the ministries involved, the agencies involved, have been setting priorities, have been attempting to deal with all the matters under their jurisdiction, have every intention to come forward with the report, but they simply have other matters within their jurisdiction, other more pressing matters they have to deal with.

I will give you my undertaking that we are endeavouring to encourage all the agencies, all the ministries, for all these reports, to try to raise the profile and the priority of these reports and to have them as soon as possible.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Point of order.

The Speaker: I've just got to rule on this. I kind of sense something about these reports.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That's a rare ability you've got there, Chris.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Fort York. I didn't grow up on the south side of the tree.

I've got to say that the point of order the member opposite has raised is in order. I say to the House leader for the government that I appreciate your input, but that point of order was in order and I would suggest to the House leader that he may investigate this and other processes, because at this point in time, if they're raised subsequently, they are points of order that are in order that then must be heard.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I also rise on a point of order with respect to standing order 39(a). As you know, the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as government's many agencies, boards and commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of cabinet who sit opposite. Standing order 39(a) states very clearly that ministers shall present reports required by statute within six months of the closing of the report.

I am speaking with particular reference to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. As you know, this is very topical because under the hospitals restructuring commission report there are recommendations for changes there. There is an act that governs that institution, the Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act, which has the following filing requirement:

"26(1) The institute shall, after the close of each fiscal year, make a report on its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and to the foundation, and every such report shall contain" -- this is very important information -- "a financial statement, certified by the auditor, showing all money received and disbursed by the institute during the preceding year.

"(2) The Minister of Health shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

Mr Speaker, I specifically want to raise with you the report from 1995-96, which has not yet been submitted to the House. I'm not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with any explanation for the delay. I request that you convey to the minister, the Minister of Health in this case, the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, in an exchange between myself and the Premier -- I want to clear this matter up -- he indicated that I may want to review very carefully the information I laid before the House and that I may want to withdraw some of it at the appropriate moment. I just want to tell the House that I have reviewed what I said yesterday and I stand by everything I said in the House yesterday.

1410

ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, we have in this House many rules which ensure that the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as the government's many agencies, boards or commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(a) is the provision that I want to draw to your attention. It states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I want to draw to your attention particularly the annual report of the University of Toronto. Under the University of Toronto Act there is a filing requirement which says: "The governing council shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I would like to draw specifically to your attention, Speaker, the fact that the report for the fiscal year 1995-96 is outstanding and I'm not aware the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for the delay, which is the other way in which the minister could have dealt with this. So I request that you convey to the minister my concerns and those, I hope, of the House that this particular report which is required to have been filed has not in fact been filed.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. You know, as most of us do, that the ministries of the government as well as the many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers. Standing 39(a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I rise in particular reference to the annual report of the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, a very important act, which has not yet been submitted to this House, and as far as I know, the minister has not provided this House with a reason why the report for 1995-96 has not been presented.

The filing requirement is not obscure, it's not debatable; it's very clear and it says as follows:

"The books and accounts of the corporation," and by "the corporation," we mean the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp, "shall be audited by the Provincial Auditor or such other auditor," so it doesn't have to be the Provincial Auditor, it could be another auditor, "as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate and such auditor," whether it's the Provincial Auditor or some other designated auditor, "shall make an annual report of the audit to the Treasurer" -- that means Minister of Finance now I think but that standing order hasn't been amended to reflect the changes in the language of this place -- "and the Treasurer shall table the report in the assembly if it is in session," such as we are now, "or, if not, at the next session," which presumably would be the fall session. We have not yet seen the report for 1995-96. That's an important omission or, if not omission, error on the part of this government and we ask your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll alert the Minister of Finance.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Speaker, I too rise on a point of order that has just been brought to my attention. In accordance with -- and I have with me the standing orders, règlement. There has been an omission and I quote from article 39(a):

"Annual reports and other sessional papers

"39(a) Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

Of course, we're talking specifically about time for presenting statutory reports. I'm appalled and shocked and very disappointed that the report dealing with the Ontario Energy Corp, which is vital for the good functioning of this House -- that this information be presented within the specified period. I wish to with respect bring this to your attention. This very crucial report has yet to reach the assembly as prescribed under standing order 39(a), an offence of grave order. I know that judiciously your wisdom and your office will address this.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Point of order: As you know, Speaker, the ministries of the government of Ontario as well as many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the council of the association in the Professional Engineers Act. Filing requirement: "The council shall make a report annually to the minister" -- the Attorney General -- "containing such information as the minister requires." Under 48(2), "The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was the 1991 annual report, May 25, 1992. Outstanding is the 1995 report, which has not yet been submitted to this House. I'm not aware if the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for any of the delay. Mr Speaker, I request that you convey to the minister the concern of the House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Which minister?

Mr Len Wood: The Attorney General.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Point of order.

The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie, just give me one moment on your point of order. I appreciate the points of order. I understand 39(a). You don't have to read the ruling every time. If you want, you can just pursue it through. I understand the point you're standing on. If it's the same or similar, you can just make your points and so on.

Mr Martin: It's important, Speaker, for me to understand as I present it to you and for folks out there to know exactly which piece of --

The Speaker: I appreciate what you're saying about the folks out there, but right now I'm concerned about the folks here and I'm just asking you -- you don't need to read 39(a) any more. Go ahead.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: As you know, the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as the government's many agencies, boards and commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(a), which is what we're standing on here, is very clear. I'm speaking in particular reference today to the annual report of the Ontario Arts Council, under the Arts Council Act, 1990.

The filing requirement is such: "The chair of the council shall annually file with the minister a report upon the affairs of the council, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report that was tabled under this particular statute was the 1994-95 annual report, on July 12, 1996. I am speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the 1995-96 year, which has not been submitted to this House. I am not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for this delay. Mr Speaker, I request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Point of order -- I'll go to the government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I have a listing of all those reports which have not been filed within the six months, and I'll read them to you, so all the members of the House I'm sure will listen and will take full accord of this.

The Speaker: Government House leader, you're going to read those reports that aren't filed? I would appreciate it if you could provide a copy for the table.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, I'll certainly provide a copy for the table.

The Farm Income Stabilization Act, which has been overdue since 1994, from the previous government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I want to hear each and every item that's spoken to. Please don't heckle, because I'm certain there are going to be questions about which was ordered and which wasn't.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Who was the minister then?

The Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea, I don't care who the minister was. I just want to hear this and I said no heckling, please.

Hon David Johnson: From the Ministry of the Attorney General: the Architects Act, again overdue in 1993, as well as 1994 and 1996; Courts of Justice Act, overdue in 1992-96 inclusive; Law Society Act; Ministry of Attorney General Act, overdue 1994, 1995 and 1996; Professional Engineers Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive;

Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation: the Human Rights Code, overdue 1990-91; McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act, overdue 1995-96; Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act; Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Act; Niagara Parks Act, overdue 1996;

1420

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Discriminatory Business Practices Act, overdue 1995-96; Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, overdue 1991, 1994, 1995 and 1996;

Ministry of Education and Training: Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Education Act (Planning and Implementation), overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Education Act (Ministries Act), overdue 1995-96; Huron College Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; An Act respecting McMaster University, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ontario College of Art Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act, overdue 1988-96 inclusive; Regis College Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, overdue 1993-94; School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Toronto Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Waterloo Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Western Ontario Act, overdue 1993-96; Wilfrid Laurier University Act, overdue 1993-96;

Ministry of Environment and Energy: Ontario Energy Corporation Act, overdue 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996;

Ministry of Finance: Capital Investment Plan Act; Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, overdue 1992-96; Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, overdue 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996; Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act, Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Registered Insurance Brokers Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive;

Ministry of Health: Cancer Act, Ontario Cancer Institute, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Cancer Act, Ontario Cancer Treatment Foundation, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Denture Therapists Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Health Disciplines Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Health Insurance Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Independent Health Facilities Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Ministry of Health Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Regulated Health Professions Act;

Ministry of Labour: Ministry of Labour Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996;

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, overdue 1993 and 1994; Ontario Municipal Board Act, overdue 1991-96 inclusive;

Management Board: Ministry of Government Services Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act, overdue 1995-96;

The last page -- Ministry of Natural Resources: Ministry of Natural Resources Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Surveyors Act, overdue 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996;

Ministry of Solicitor General: Ministry of Solicitor General Act, overdue 1989-96;

Ministry of Transportation: Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ministry of Transportation and Communications Act, overdue 1995-96.

Mr Speaker, those are the lists of outstanding reports. You will see that many of them date back to about 1992 or 1993 and some back to 1988 and 1989, but it seems as if in many cases to 1992 or 1993, when the NDP was in government, the party which is expressing such great concern here this afternoon that these reports are not in. Yet it was that very party, when in government, that did not take the initiative to have these reports in.

By standing order 39(a), the minister shall present reports "unless reasons for delay are given to the House." I will give those reasons in each and every case -- this list, which I will table with the Clerk's department. Those ministries have been involved in very important matters which have consumed their time.

Particularly over the last couple of years, those important matters are providing services to the people of Ontario; they are providing the business plans to guide the services that are being provided to the people of Ontario. Those activities include restructuring the ministries, a most important activity that they've been involved with over the last two years, to ensure that services are given but that the costs of each and every ministry, each and every board and commission, each and every entity on this list which is required to give a reason, each and every one of those is accomplished in an affordable fashion to deal with the $10-billion, $11-billion, $12-billion deficits that we faced in the province of Ontario through many years, to deal with $100 billion of debt. Those ministries, those agencies and commissions have been busy restructuring themselves, making themselves more efficient, bringing in their business plans, providing service to the people of Ontario.

I will further indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that we have become aware of this situation. We are in the process of communicating with each and every one of them. Notwithstanding how busy they are, notwithstanding that they have absolutely excellent reasons for where they are today, still we're going to insist that all of these reports be brought forward in due course to the satisfaction of this House.

The Speaker: To the government House leader, you're giving me your undertaking that those are all of the outstanding reports that are due to this Legislature?

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, to my knowledge, I've been presented with this list and it has been put to me that this is a complete list of all the outstanding reports. I will submit it to the Clerk's department at this point.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two things: First of all, on the first point of order that I raised with you, which was with respect to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, the minister did make reference to that, but I would point out that the filing requirement that is contained in the legislation specifically refers to the Minister of Health and that the standing order dictates that the appropriate minister must give reasons to the Legislature. I do not believe we have heard reasons from the appropriate minister. We have not had satisfaction and it is still within order to raise these to your concern.

Second, although we've not been provided with the list that the government House leader just read from -- I tried to follow along closely -- specifically I'd like to raise a concern again. It's under the same section. It's with respect to a report from the Facility Association. As you know, we've had changes to automobile insurance legislation in this province that directly impact on the use and the utilization of the Facility Association, and the act's filing requirement says, "The members of the board of directors and the officers and employees of the association shall furnish the commissioner with such information and financial statements with respect to the association and the plan..., and the commissioner shall make an annual report to the Minister of Financial Institutions on the affairs of the association and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled on that was in 1990-91, and that was tabled on May 6, 1993. I am raising a concern specifically with you now with respect to the annual report outstanding for 1991-92. It is not on the list, as far as I am aware, and I have a couple of others that I would like to review with you.

1430

Most particularly, I also want to raise the point that the reasons for the report not being tabled with the House, by the filing requirement in the act, must be given by the appropriate minister. In this case, the minister named in the filing requirement is the Minister of Financial Institutions.

I would like to proceed with a number of others, some of which the government House leader has touched on. Those which he is directly responsible for I certainly won't raise, but where other ministers are involved, I would like the opportunity to raise what I believe is a legitimate point of order.

The Speaker: To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, 39(a) speaks to filing the report or filing the reasons why you're not filing the report. What we have here is the government House leader speaking on behalf of the ministers, not on the reasons they couldn't file the report or not by filing the report, but by simply saying, "We, the government, undertake to hear this as a point of order" -- your earlier ones -- "and we also want to give notice to the House that we will be providing reasons or the report in the very near future."

You don't need the minister to stand up and say that; you need the minister to give you either the report or give you the reasons why they can't file the report. The government House leader is in order when he stands in his place and tells this House, "We take that notice. All these reports we take and give you notice that we will be filing reasons and the report in the very near future," and at that time the affected minister will have to be here to either file the reasons or the report.

On your Facility report: I don't believe that was part of the report offered up by the government House leader. I take that as notice and I will advise the minister to report back.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Further to the ruling that you've now made and the appreciation that we did our best to follow the number of reports the minister outlined, I believe I have one that was not mentioned. We are trying to get the list so that if we do raise any that have been mentioned, we're not duplicating that effort. But under 39(a) I would like to point out that I did not hear the --

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm just going to direct the Clerk to make copies and provide them for each caucus.

Mr Christopherson: Would you like us to take a few minutes to review that or do you want hear my point of order right now?

The Speaker: I think I'd better hear your point of order right now.

Mr Christopherson: On the French Language Services Act, 1990, the filing requirements are, "The minister, after the close of each fiscal year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the Office of Francophone Affairs and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session." It is my understanding we have not yet received the report from the years 1995 and 1996. I would ask that you bring that to the attention of the government.

The Speaker: Done.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I appreciate that you have clarified for me that the Facility Association was not read out by the minister. Therefore, I would like to draw to your attention, again under 39(a), that we are also concerned, particularly given the legislative changes that have happened with respect to the Facility Association review going on, that we have not seen the outstanding report for 1992-93, nor have we seen any reasons given by the appropriate minister for delay of such. I would appreciate it if you would draw that report also to the attention of the appropriate minister.

The Speaker: Done.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, I also believe there is a further valid point of order on an outstanding annual report which I didn't hear in the list from the government House leader, and that deals with the annual report of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. The filing requirement under the Telephone Act is, "The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the commission to the member of the executive council to whom the administration of this act is assigned" -- and I believe it's assigned to the minister of culture, tourism and recreation -- "who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I won't repeat standing order 39(a), which we have quoted from already, but this report, at least as it relates to 1994, I believe has not been filed and I would ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of this House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Did you read the pertinent legislation when you read that in, about reporting of the telephone commission?

Mr Silipo: I did, yes.

The Speaker: There's still actively a telephone commission?

Ms Lankin: No, but the outstanding reports still need to be filed. Do you want me to tell you? I used to be the minister.

Mr Silipo: I quoted, sir, from the Telephone Act. I can tell you further to that point that the last report was tabled on June 29, 1994, and that was for 1993. There has been no report filed for 1994.

Mr Martin: In the same context, Speaker, I have a report that wasn't mentioned by the House leader in his presentation to you a few minutes ago. It's in keeping with the previous point of order, which calls for ministries of the government of Ontario as well as government agencies, boards and commissions accountable to the Legislature, through the ministers of the cabinet, to report. It falls under the Insurance Act, 1990. The filing requirement is, "At least once every two years, the minister shall table a report before the assembly in respect of the adequacy of no-fault benefits in setting out changes made to the no-fault benefits schedule since the last report and changes that are proposed to the no-fault benefits schedule at the time of the report."

The last report in this instance, a report on the no-fault benefits schedule and notice of proposed changes to the schedule, was filed on June 12, 1992. I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of 1993-94, which has not yet been submitted to this House. I am not aware that the appropriate minister has provided the House with an explanation for this delay. I request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not in fact been filed.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is looking for a report that doesn't exist. If he had watched the Legislative Assembly over the last year or so, he would have realized that section of the act was repealed when the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act came into force last year. I would encourage him to pay a little bit more attention to his background studies. In fact, I believe those reports have been filed with the House, and I will undertake to get them to him if he hasn't had that research from his own people.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Speaker, on the point that the minister raises: The minister ignores the fact that my colleague from Sault Ste Marie was referring to a year when the act was still in place and there should have been a report filed. According to the act, I understand it's the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relation who is responsible for making the report available and for giving the explanation; not the minister for privatization or whatever he is.

Ms Lankin: When the government House leader was reading off the long list, and although there's a copy here, I haven't yet seen it -- others are looking at that -- he made reference to the Wilfrid Laurier University Act, the filing requirement which says, "The board of governors shall make an annual report, including an audited financial statement, to the Minister of Colleges and Universities," which would now be the Minister of Education and Training, and the same requirements that they must be submitted to the LG in Council and laid before the assembly.

1440

He specifically made reference to the report for 1995-96. I would point out to you that I actually had already risen on a point of order and had made reference to that specific year. When the minister read that one, he did not list any other years. I would like to raise a concern of the report --

The Speaker: For 1996, he did list.

Ms Lankin: The report hasn't been audited --

The Speaker: We recorded at the clerks' table that he listed 1993-96.

Ms Lankin: Then I would raise a concern with respect to 1992.

The Speaker: May I stand, though? I want to deal with the nub of this.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, I think it's better if we just not heckle at this point in time. I appreciate what is going on. I would ask that the third party take their legitimate points of order and list the ones that you have left. I will hear them and direct the ministers to respond to those points of order. If you all have different ones, then I suggest you stand individually and list the ones you have left and I'll be happy to refer them to the ministers and ask that they report back.

It obviously will facilitate a speedier process. I understand that may not be the idea, but with the greatest respect, it seems to me that if I let you stand up individually and list whatever ones you have left, you can do that one at a time through the caucus and then we can move on.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, the difficulty with your suggestion is that we have been provided by the table with one copy of the minister's list and we did try to follow it through when he gave it orally. It is a little difficult for us to comply with your suggestion at this point because there are some who believe that they may have particular reports that were not referred to by the minister. We've already had a couple of examples of that.

The minister can give his assurances that his list covers them all, but the fact is that we don't know that it covers them all.

The Speaker: Okay, member for Algoma, then I will give you the latitude of listing all of them. Whether or not they were covered by the government House leader, you may in fact list all of them so you'll be certain that you won't miss any. That should solve the problem.

Mr Wildman: All right. I have a point of order regarding standing order 39(a) which relates to the Education Act: The minister did say the Ministry of Education Act, but I didn't hear if he listed the particular years about which I'm concerned. The outstanding reports of the Education Act which the minister is required to provide at the close of each fiscal year to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the immediately preceding fiscal year have not been provided for 1994-95 or 1995-96.

The Speaker: Is that all, member for Algoma?

Mr Wildman: The Planning and Implementation Commission of the Ministry of Education under the Education Act: "The commission" -- that is the Planning and Implementation Commission -- "shall make an annual report to the minister and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was 1991-92, which was tabled on December 13, 1993. So the question is, where are the reports for 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96?

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: I have not reviewed this against the list, so the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry -- I raise with you concerns with respect to the report from 1995-96. The last report that was actually tabled was the 1992-93 annual report, which was tabled on March 16, 1994. I would like to raise concerns with respect to the outstanding reports for 1993-94 and 1994-95. I believe you have already instructed me about the Wilfrid Laurier University, all years, so I will skip that one.

I'd like to raise a concern with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board Act. The filing requirement: "The board shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the board to the Attorney General who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1990-91 annual report. That was tabled on August 23, 1991. I wish to bring to your attention my concern with respect to the outstanding reports of 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Also under standing order 39(a), I would like to raise my concern with respect to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Labour Act. The filing requirement says, "The minister shall after the close of each fiscal year submit an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report which was tabled was the 1992-93 annual report. That was tabled on February 23, 1995. There are outstanding reports of 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Also with respect to standing order 39(a), I would like to raise a concern with respect to the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. The filing requirement reads, "The Attorney General after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on January 31, 1995. I wish to raise concerns with respect to the outstanding reports of 1994-95 and 1995-96.

I have raised with you concerns about the Facility Association, which is under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, 1990, the filing requirement being, "The members of the board of directors and the officers and employees of the association shall furnish the commissioner with such information and financial statements with respect to the association and the plan..., and the commissioner shall make an annual report to the Minister of Financial Institutions on the affairs of the association and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

As I indicated to you, the last report tabled was for 1990-91, and that was tabled on May 6, 1993. I have already raised concerns with respect to the reports from 1991-92 and 1992-93. I wish now to raise concerns with respect to the reports from 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. That is the entirety of the list that I have at this point.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, taking your suggestion or your direction, I would like to bring to your attention a number of annual reports which I believe have not been filed nor are included in the list that the government House leader has indicated. One in particular deals with the filing requirement under the Municipal Act, which states: "The treasurer of every municipality shall in each year within the time prescribed by the ministry make a return to the ministry on forms provided by it of such information and statistics with respect to the financial affairs, accounts and transactions of the municipality as the ministry may prescribe, and every such return shall be transmitted by registered mail.... The ministry shall cause to be prepared annually a tabulated statement of the returns which shall be laid before the assembly."

I realize that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may have been busy with other activities, but the truth, as I understand it, is that the last report filed was the 1994 Municipal Financial Information report. That was tabled on January 7, 1997. But reports are still outstanding with respect to the year 1995. I would draw that to your attention and ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

I further would like to draw to your attention the 1995 annual report of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. I noted earlier that the 1994 report of that commission had not been filed. The 1995 report has, to my understanding, also not been filed, and that of course is a requirement of the Telephone Act.

1450

The filing requirement stated under that legislation is, "The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the commission to the member of the executive council to whom the administration of this act is assigned" -- my understanding is that that is the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation -- "who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

That relates to the 1995 annual report. I would ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

I believe, following the Speaker's request, that, from the list I have, covers the outstanding annual reports.

Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I mentioned earlier in these proceedings that the reports under the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, 1995-96, had not been tabled. As you are aware, the ministries, as well as their agencies, boards and commissions, are required to table annual reports in the assembly.

As a matter of fact, the standing order is very specific. It states that "ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I mentioned 1995-96, but I can tell you that the report for the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act has not been tabled for 1995-96, as I said earlier, but nor has it has been tabled for 1994-95 or 1993-94.

You know, as we do, that the filing requirement is very clear and states, "The books and accounts of the corporations to be audited by the Provincial Auditor or such other auditor as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate and such auditor shall make an annual report of the audit to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer shall table the report in the assembly if it is session or, if not, at the next session."

I also am concerned about the Ministry of the Solicitor General Act. As you know, ministries are governed under acts, and the Solicitor General was supposed to, "after the close of each year...submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next...session." The last report tabled, and this is surprising to me, was 1988, which means there's been no report tabled for either 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995. That of course is not appropriate nor acceptable, and I trust that will be looked after.

As well, we have the Law Foundation of Ontario, which operates under the Law Society Act. That report, I believe, has also not been tabled for the year 1995. It was tabled for 1994 on December 1, 1995. But the last year, 1995, should have been tabled by now, and it has not been done.

Finally, the College Relations Commission, which is still in existence, operates under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, and the commission is supposed to annually prepare a report on the affairs of that commission for the preceding year and the report should be tabled in the Legislature. The last report that was tabled was 1991-92, and that was tabled on June 24, 1994. There are still outstanding reports from the College Relations Commission for 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I don't understand why the government would not have tabled the report for the preceding years as well as 1995-96.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, on your advice, I'm going to read out some of the reports I have an interest in. I'm not sure if they were read out or not. I did have a look at the list, but I forgot my glasses. I saw some of them and I just want to confirm these.

One is the Ontario Place Corp, and the act is the Ontario Place Corporation Act. The filing requirement says, "The corporation shall make a report annually to the minister upon the affairs of the corporation and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council," and that has not been done yet.

The last tabled report, the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1994, was tabled on April 16, 1997. The outstanding reports are -- and this is where I'm not sure of the dates which were read out here -- for 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Another one that I have a great deal of interest in is quite far behind, and that is the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act. The filing requirement is this: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled for the Ministry of Citizenship was the 1992-93 annual report, tabled on March 25, 1994. The outstanding reports are for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would appreciate hearing from the Minister of Citizenship and Culture why these reports have not been filed and if she could make those available.

Another one is the Board of Funeral Services, which we all in this place have an interest in, a great deal of interest, and the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, 1990. The filing requirements for this say, "The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations shall submit the annual report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled, the 1993 annual report, was tabled on July 27, 1994, but the outstanding reports are 1994 and 1995. I would ask the minister responsible for the Board of Funeral Services if he could make those very important reports available, and perhaps he could explain why they have not been filed yet.

My last one --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Well, the Board of Funeral Services is a very important report.

The Speaker: I would like to hear your last one.

Ms Churley: My last one is from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Health Act. The filing requirement: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled, the 1992-93 annual report, was tabled on July 8, 1994. The outstanding reports are 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I realize the Minister of Health has been very busy, but I would suggest that he get these reports to us.

Mr Len Wood: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 39(a), as you've heard, states very clearly that there's a filing requirement under the Professional Engineers Act. I know the government House leader mentioned one of the reports that has been filed, but I didn't hear him mention the outstanding reports of 1995, 1994, 1993 and 1992. The last report that was filed, the 1991 report, was tabled on May 25, 1992. There's a concern on this side of the House that the reports are not coming forward.

I know that you would have a concern under 39(a) as well, on the Ministry of Government Services Act, that there's a filing requirement: "The minister, after the close of each year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I heard the government House leader mention one particular year, but the last one I have a record of is the 1991 annual report, which was tabled on September 29, 1992. So as to the 1995-96 report, I'm not aware that the minister has tabled that in the House or given an explanation of why it was not tabled. There's also concern about the 1994-95 report and the 1993-94 report, and also the 1992-93 report. It's a concern of the caucus that we would like you to look into this and make sure it is taken care of.

1500

The Speaker: I appreciate that. Do you have any more?

Mr Len Wood: No. Thank you.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I have a number of reports that haven't been tabled in my estimation, or at least it's my --

The Speaker: Let's hear them.

Mr Martin: Paying attention to the House leader, I didn't hear them reported. I'm slow.

The Speaker: Oh no, you're not. You can go ahead.

Mr Martin: It takes a little while. It's really important that the rules of order of this place be followed and that reports from agencies and ministries that are out there be tabled, so I have one from the Ministry of Natural Resources, under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act, that hasn't been tabled. The filing requirement: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report tabled under this act was the 1991 annual report, tabled on July 2, 1992. It's our understanding that there are outstanding reports for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, and it would be helpful to us if you were to send a message to that particular minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, that he have these reports tabled --

The Speaker: I appreciate that, yes.

Mr Martin: -- or if he can't have them tabled, that he give a reason for their not being tabled to the House so that we all are on the same page in that book.

The Speaker: I understand.

Mr Martin: Also, the Ontario Cancer Institute, under the Cancer Act, 1990. The filing requirement: "The institute shall after the close of each fiscal year make a report upon its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and every such report shall contain a financial statement" --

Mr Shea: You raised that one; he mentioned that.

Mr Martin: Yes, he mentioned it, but he didn't mention all of the years.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'd like you to direct your comments to me and what years you're concerned about with reporting of the Cancer Society.

Mr Pouliot: This is the Cancer Society.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: We're all on a waiting list, Speaker. The Cancer Society.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, direct your comments through me. Do not listen to the heckles. I caution the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Martin: I was trying to be helpful to the member for High Park-Swansea and explaining to him --

The Speaker: I appreciate that. I'd just like to hear what the years you're concerned about are.

Mr Martin: I tried, member for High Park-Swansea, to be helpful to you, but anyway, to get back to the business at hand --

Mr Shea: I'll get back to you later.

Mr Martin: Okay. The filing requirement: "The institute shall after the close of each fiscal year make a report upon its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and every such report shall contain a financial statement certified by the auditor, showing all money received and disbursed by the institute during the preceding year" -- that's the year that went before.

"The Minister of Health shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly" -- that's us gathered here -- "if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled in this instance was the 1991 annual report, which was tabled on November 25, 1993. Our concern is --

Mr Shea: Were you the PA then?

Mr Martin: No, not in this particular ministry.

Our concern is that reports are outstanding for the years 1991-92 --

Mr Shea: That was your government, right?

Mr Martin: Yes -- the years 1992-93, 1993-94 -- now we're moving into a new government, which I believe is your government -- and 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would ask the Speaker to please ask of the government, and in this instance the Minister of Health, that he report back to the House why these reports have not been tabled. That would be, I believe, very helpful to all of us here. I think that's all for me.

The Speaker: Thank you so much.

Mr Christopherson: Further to your ruling, Speaker, the list of reports that I have concerns about in terms of not being tabled under 39(a) would go as follows:

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications Act, 1990 -- the filing requirements are, "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on March 15, 1995, and the outstanding reports would be the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next group of reports I have concerns about and would ask you to raise with the appropriate minister refer to the Registered Insurance Brokers Act. The filing requirements are, "The superintendent shall make an annual examination of the affairs of the corporation and shall report concerning the examination to the minister and the minister shall then lay the annual report of the corporation and the report of the superintendent before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last tabled report, Speaker, was the 1993 annual report. It was tabled on June 22, 1994, and I believe this House is still due the 1994 and the 1995 reports.

Further concerns that I have are with regard to the University of Western Ontario Act. The filing requirements for this particular act are: "The board of governors shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the combined financial statements, 1991-92, and that was tabled on December 3, 1992. We are still awaiting the reports from 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Next, Speaker, I draw to your attention my concerns around the filing requirements under the Huron College Act of 1975. Those filing requirements are: "The executive board shall make a financial report annually to the minister in such a form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was tabled on October 21, 1992, and that was in the report and financial statements of April 30, 1992. We are still owed reports for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Next, Speaker, I draw to your attention filing requirements under the Ontario Colleges of Art Act. Those requirements are as follows: "The council shall at the close of each fiscal year file with the Minister of Colleges and Universities an annual report upon the affairs of the college." Later it states, "The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the financial statements, May 31, 1992, and that was tabled on November 4, 1992. This House is still awaiting the reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would ask you to bring that to the attention of the appropriate minister.

Next, Speaker, I have concerns about annual reports due under the Denture Therapists Act. The filing requirements there are, "The appeal board shall...submit an annual report on its activities to the minister which shall include such additional information as the minister may require and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1993 annual report, which was tabled on February 9, 1995. We still await the 1994 and 1995 reports.

1510

Further to a point of order I raised with you earlier under the French Language Services Act, 1990, you'll recall, Speaker, that the filing requirements are that: "The minister, after the close of each fiscal year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the Office of Francophone Affairs and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

Speaker, as I raised with you earlier, the last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on March 27, 1995. I would bring to your attention that we are still awaiting the report of 1994-95.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish the honourable member for Hamilton Centre would get his facts straight. I have here a report which says, "Office of Francophone Affairs, Annual Report, 1994-95, 1995-96," and I would say that this member owes the staff of francophone affairs an apology. We have the goods right here.

Mr Wildman: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker: I know what your point of order is.

Ms Lankin: It hasn't been tabled.

The Speaker: Are you certain that has been tabled?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It has gone to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of personal privilege, sir.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's very true. I'm already listening to a point of order. I can't possibly take your point of privilege while I'm listening to a point of order. Point of order, member for Fort York, but I will wait to hear it.

Mr Marchese: Monsieur le Président, I only have a few acts to which I will refer.

The Independent Health Facilities Act, 1990: "The minister" -- as you know, under the filing requirements -- "shall annually prepare a report on the implementation of this act and submit it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The annual report for the 20-month period ending December 31, 1991, was tabled on July 14, 1992. We still have outstanding reports for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.

The next act is the University of Waterloo Act. Under the filing requirement, the board of governors "shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The financial statements, April 30, 1992, was tabled on November 4, 1993. We're still waiting for the reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next act is the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act. Under the filing requirement, the adjustment fund "shall be audited by the Provincial Auditor who shall make an annual report to the Treasurer of Ontario, and the Treasurer shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if it is not, at the next...session."

The financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1994, was tabled on November 9, 1994. We're still waiting for reports of 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next act is the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act. Under the filing requirement, "The public accounts for each fiscal year shall be prepared under the direction of the Treasurer and shall be delivered to the Lieutenant Governor and laid before the assembly not later than the 10th day of the first session held in the following...year."

The 1994-95 public accounts, volumes 1, 2 and 3, were tabled on October 2, 1995. We're still waiting for the report of 1995-96.

Another act is the Health Disciplines Act. The filing requirement for that is that: "The board shall...submit an annual report on its activities to the minister which shall include such additional information as the minister may require and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The 1993 annual report was tabled on February 9, 1995, and the outstanding reports are of 1994 and 1995.

The final one, Mr Speaker, you'll be happy to know, is the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, 1990. The filing requirement for that is, "The minister shall, as soon as possible, after the end of each year, prepare and cause to be laid before the Legislature a report on the administration and enforcement of this act for that year."

The 1991-92 annual report was tabled on July 14, 1992, and we're waiting for the other reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I thank you for your attention, Mr Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, yesterday I took some time to point out to you that you have a serious credibility problem in Ontario when it comes to education. I said that, based on your record, Ontarians don't trust you with the education of their children, and of course you said I was wrong.

Today we learn that your own poll shows that you, Minister, have the least credibility of all the players in the education system. People said that when it comes to students, parents, teachers, trustees and you, it was you who earned the ranking of the least credible of all. On top of that, the government paid $53,000 to find that out. I told him that yesterday for free.

Minister, I'm going to give you another chance. Given the long list of unanswered questions about your school takeover bill and given the damage you have already done to classrooms and students, tell us once again, why should you be trusted with our children's education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It's odd to have in this House the Leader of the Opposition represent something in what I think is a fair way, and I believe he just did. The poll does indicate that among the bottom of the barrel in terms of public trust are politicians. That has been borne out in poll after poll, federally, provincially, in every province across this country for many, many years, and it's no different in Ontario. I believe that should be of concern to those of us who work in this Legislature.

I think one of the reasons that politicians are not held in much trust is because politicians say things like: "We have an obligation to consider it. We can't back away from the prospects of amalgamation. As Liberals, we're fiscally responsible. We've got to look at that when we talk about amalgamation."

The Leader of the Opposition was the person who made that quote, yet he has stood in this House day after day after day and attacked a bill that does just that. That's why the people of Ontario don't trust politicians, because people like the Leader of the Opposition flip-flop on this issue --

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

Mr McGuinty: I guess the minister doesn't have an answer, but I'll remind the minister that he was the one who cut education in this province by at least $500 million; he's the one who suggested that he could find another $1 billion in savings in education; he's the guy who forced 25 boards in Ontario to cut junior kindergarten; he's the guy who forced 23 boards to make cuts to special education; and he's the guy who forced boards to cut staff and increase class sizes. He's in the driver's seat. I'm not in the driver's seat.

Trust is something you earn and here's a way you can start to earn it: Tell us how much you plan to spend on our students once your school takeover bill is passed. Can you do that very simple thing, Minister? Will you give us right now your funding formula for schools once Bill 104 is passed?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's nice to see the Leader of the Opposition return to his normal form of distorting things.

1520

The Speaker: "Distortion" I think is a word that is too closely aligned with "misleading" etc. I would ask you to withdraw "distortion."

Hon Mr Snobelen: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Let me just say that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong in his assertions that he has just put before this Legislature. I won't take them on one at a time; he can keep asking, if he'd like, and I can take those on.

What we have done as a government is what we promised the people of Ontario in the Common Sense Revolution. We continue to build a better system of education. We continue, in direct answer to his question, to fix the problems left by your government, left by the previous government, in a funding model that no one likes, that no one has recommended, that treats students in Ontario as second-class citizens based on where they live. We think that's unfair.

We are bringing in an allocation model that will fund every student's need in this province of Ontario, fund them fairly and give them an equal opportunity. We intend to consult broadly with the education sector and make sure that our allocation model is one that will meet the needs of those individual students, because we believe in listening to the people of Ontario, particularly listening to the people who deliver education.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to allow the minister to pick whichever of these he feels represents a distortion, to use his word: Did he or did he not cut education in this province by at least $400 million? Did he or did he not suggest that he could find another $1 billion in savings in education? Did he or did he not force 25 boards to cut junior kindergarten? Did he or did he not force 23 boards to make cuts to special education? Did he or did he not force boards throughout the province to cut staff and increase class sizes?

This man asks for our trust, but I tell you, entrusting the welfare of our children to him would be like you, Speaker, asking Dr Kevorkian to look after your mother and make sure she's okay.

One more time, Minister, prove to us today that you're worthy of the trust of people who are involved in education in this province by telling us you're going to restore funding for adult education, guidance, junior kindergarten and all the other programs --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: That is one of the saddest performances I've seen in this Legislature. The answer to your question, whatever it is, is no, that this government has kept its promises to the people of Ontario. We are moving forward now to have higher standards --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury and member for Kenora, please come to order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: There is a reason that is such a sad performance; that is, once again it misrepresents what's been done by this government, misrepresents the directions of this government, and it also interjects what I think is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts as they are and what we need to do in education in the province of Ontario.

We need higher student achievement. It's not all right with this government that we have mediocre results from our students. We think we need to make investments in the classroom, we think we need to help teachers and we think we need to lift student achievement. We have to do that by having higher standards in each and every grade, by having a clear province-wide curriculum, by making the investment on behalf of taxpayers that will pay off in the lives of those students.

It's a serious subject for this government, one we're committed to, and we're getting on with that business with Bill 104 and other changes. I'm proud of our record on education and I'm willing to debate it anywhere in this province with the Leader of the Opposition.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, yesterday I asked you why, in this time of crisis for children in Ontario who are having to contend with abuse, you had allowed 340 full-time staff to be laid off from Ontario's children's aid societies, and you had no answer.

According to the Child Welfare League of America, a child protection worker's caseload should consist of a maximum of 17 active families per month. That's an absolute maximum. Obviously, I made the assumption that you had laid off those 340 workers because workers in Ontario could deal with the caseloads they presently have.

Let me tell you what I found. I found that in your own riding of Durham, the average case worker handles 28 families a month. The absolute maximum is 17, but the children's aid society workers in your riding handle 28. That's 64% more than the established maximum. I also found out that the children's aid society in your riding has laid off 27 staff members because of funding cuts.

Minister, I want you to tell me that in the upcoming budget you are going to, at minimum, return the $17 million you stole from Ontario children's aid societies.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member across the way well knows, the children's aid societies make the decisions. They are empowered to make the decisions in terms of what their staff should be, what their budget allocations are. This government does not dictate or say to children's aid societies the number of people they should be employing.

Second, as the honourable member is well aware, we have a special contingency fund for children's aid societies which has been there for many years and which continues to be there so that if they do need extra assistance, it is there to help support them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the ultimate responsibility for these children lies with you, and nobody else should feel that weight in quite the same way you should. Nobody is here to ensure more than you are that Ontario's kids grow up safe from neglect and abuse. By not restoring funding to CASs, by not offering them the tools they require to protect kids, you're sentencing those kids, you're condemning them, to lives of misery and pain.

Listen to this: 80% of all female prisoners today in Ontario jails are victims of child physical or sexual abuse. Child prostitution prevention programs for ages nine and up find that 99% have a history of child abuse. Suicide prevention programs find that children with a history of sexual abuse are 10 times more likely to attempt suicide.

These kids need you, and they need you now. They need you to stand up for them and give the children's aid societies the tools they need: money, staff and, most important, your own undying support.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member well knows that throwing money at any problem is not going to solve any problem. What the children's aid workers are saying, what the families are saying, what the police and the court workers and the professionals are saying is that we need better information supports for the staff, we need better training for the staff, we need resources that are in the right place at the right time, we need better intervention and prevention.

All of those things this ministry either has under way or has already done, and we are looking forward to the recommendations of the task force when they are complete so we can continue to improve the system.

Mr McGuinty: Today in Ontario several children will be physically abused. They'll be punched or kicked, they'll suffer cigarette burns, they'll be violently shaken, they'll be sexually assaulted, and most of them will be under the age of five. These kids don't know your name -- they don't even know you exist -- and they don't understand anything about this Parliament and of course none of them are going to contact us. But if you and I could talk to them and if we could make them understand and were able to bring them into a room, what do you think they would ask for? Do you think they'd ask for adequate funding to make them safe or do you think they'd ask for a tax cut?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I appreciate the honourable member's concern about this. Every Minister of Community and Social Services, whether Liberal, NDP or Conservative, has faced the challenge of children in care or supervision of children's aid societies who die. I don't think it's important to sit here and argue over whose watch or whose fault. I think it's important to ask, how did the system fail these children?

What the recommendations from the task force report and the coroners' testimony have indicated, what the Toronto Star articles have indicated, is that there are many problems in the system. Those problems need to be addressed, and that is why this government is doing what it is doing for more money for intervention and prevention, why we're doing more investment in better tools for those workers to support them, all kinds of steps that we are taking to improve this system, because the system has indeed failed these children. We quite recognize that. I'm not going to sit here and play political games with the member opposite. I want to get on with the job of fixing the system.

1530

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question was for Monsieur Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I understand he couldn't wait and had to leave, so I'll direct my question to the government House leader.

Minister, your attempt to get a backroom deal with handpicked municipal leaders isn't working, not as far as we can tell. Your dealings are so secret that you won't even tell the Association of Municipalities of Ontario when the meetings are being held, yet all your backroom dealing will cost taxpayers well over $1 billion in public health costs, long-term care, housing costs and social service costs. People don't want this. All over Ontario nobody wants it. Even your own allies, like the board of trade, don't want this. You are about to whack homeowners and tenants with a big tax increase. Do you believe this is wise?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I certainly wouldn't believe it would be wise to hit any property owners in the province with a tax increase. That's why we're headed exactly in the opposite direction. What we fully intend to happen as the result of the services being rationalized between two levels of government, some services going to the municipal level, the huge cost of education coming off the property tax -- that represents well over $5 billion this year and it's going up at the rate of over 5% a year, so it will soon be $6 billion that's been taken off the property tax of residential taxpayers. That, in my submission, will allow the municipalities the room to take over the other services. In fact, what we should see because of that and because of other tools municipalities are getting --

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

Hon David Johnson: -- we will see a reduction in property taxes in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Durham East, thank you for your intervention, but heckling is out of order.

Mr Marchese: We are not going to see reductions in property taxes. The minister says we're taking education off the property tax, but he's about to whack them with additional costs connected to housing, child care, welfare, long-term care, public health and so many other services that you're downloading to the municipal taxpayer, to the property homeowner and the tenants.

You have, with pompous authority, forced the megacity against the express wishes of Metropolitan Toronto, and you're going to do the same on the downloading, only this time it is every single taxpayer across Ontario who will pay. If some of your backbenchers look nervous from time to time, it's because it's going to cost their constituents over $400 per household; they know that, and you know that.

Civil servants tell us that's just the beginning. The transition costs, costs you have not accounted for, will amount to over $229 million, and that does not include severance costs. Minister, why should taxpayers pay over $229 million in --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Management Board chair?

Hon David Johnson: I would say there's one important word in this whole exercise, and that word is "accountability." What is happening is that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has come forward with a proposition whereby the accountability rests with a level of government. Library services, for example, which were partially funded by the province and partially by municipalities, will now be funded by municipalities; total accountability will rest there. Police services, partially funded municipally, partially funded provincially; total accountability at the municipal level. The cost of education will be totally taken off the residential property tax; total accountability will go to the province of Ontario.

What happens is a basic principle of government: When you have the accountability, you have efficiency and you have effectiveness, and those who steward that particular budget do a better job of it, and costs go down and the service level goes up. That's exactly what we'll get when this new disentangled system is put in place next year.

Mr Marchese: People expected you to take the costs of welfare off the municipal taxpayer. That's clarity. They did not ask you to pay for the long-term care through the property tax, they did not ask you to pay for housing through property tax, they did not ask you to pay for welfare through the property tax. They didn't ask you to do any of that. That was the clarity that municipalities wanted, and you have confused them now with a greater burden, and not only confused them, you have added an extra burden to the taxpayer, to the homeowner and to the tenant.

Ask your caucus members what this will mean to them, because each and every one of those homeowners is going to be paying over $400. They are nervous, and they should be, because that is the implication of your download. If you ask them, you will find that they will urge you not to do this. Will you withdraw this bill that's going to increase property taxes for everyone across Ontario, or are you going to be foolhardy and not listen to that either?

Hon David Johnson: I would say to the member opposite that there is already welfare on the property tax. There is already a cost-sharing formula. Welfare today is on the property tax in various formulas. Health care today: Part of health care is on the property tax, public health. Housing: A portion of housing is already on the property tax today. What is being proposed here is not new. What is being proposed is a more accountable formula, a more accountable system.

Beyond that, I will say that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is proposing a permanent $1-billion fund to assist municipalities and a restructuring capital fund of $800 million to assist municipalities during this transition period. This will be a more accountable system. It will work. It will result in lower property taxes.

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. This question is about broken promises. In a recent article in the Hamilton Spectator, staff from your office indicated with respect to your government's promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and I'm quoting from that article, "that the government is not sold on the value of an overarching act and that the legislation might be impractical," and further, "that instead of a law, the government is looking at general policy." This is despite Mr Harris's explicit, in-writing commitment to persons with disabilities that there would be an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Today I received further evidence of this broken promise, and this is a leaked cabinet document from your ministry. It's entitled "Overview of Citizenship Directions." It forms part of your ministry's submissions to Management Board for estimates. In that, with respect to access, it indicates that you're moving from barrier-free access to community services for seniors and persons with disabilities to barrier-free within the equal opportunity plan, voluntary. Why are you breaking your promise to enact a law, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): In answer to the honourable member's question, let me remind the honourable member what the Premier did say. What the Premier said was that we as a government are willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within the financial goalposts of this government and that we would be willing to do it in our first year. We have not broken any such commitments; in fact, we are still working with the disabled community to bring some kind of framework forward to protect the interests of Ontarians with disabilities.

Ms Lankin: Well, I have a letter here from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee to you which doesn't indicate that they think you're working with them, and I have a leaked cabinet document in which your priorities for 1996-97 and 1997-98 are set out. Nowhere does it mention that you are working on an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is not in your priorities. It is not in your ministry work plan as set out here.

1540

Furthermore, it indicates that you are looking at moving away from things like distinct programs targeted on prevention of violence against women with disabilities and also racial minority women, where you had two distinct programs. That says you're moving to program rationalization. Despite the fact that the minister responsible for women's issues said there would be no cuts, you're going to move away from distinct programs.

Also, we've had a court ruling in the last week that has questioned what is going on with the declaration of mental incompetence for persons with disabilities, because you have done away with rights advisers. There's nowhere in this work plan and in your priorities that says that you're going to help get rights advice for these people.

Why are you abandoning persons with disabilities? It is clear throughout this leaked document. Minister, stand up for those --

Hon Ms Mushinski: Let me reassure the honourable member that my government remains committed to removing barriers for persons with disabilities. The latest initiative we have undertaken is to contract with the Roeher Institute to conduct an evaluation study of the overall impact to date and the implementation costs of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Once we get the results back to that, we'll have a better idea of how to framework an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, you can continue not to answer the questions, but I think that speaks volumes. I remind you that this leaked document that comes from your own ministry is entitled Overview of Citizenship Directions. It sets out your priorities in the ministry for the next two years. My colleague from Beaches-Woodbine has already mentioned what's been missing or what is missing from that document.

I want to refer you to another thing that is also very clearly missing from the citizenship priorities, and that is that there is no reference to any anti-racism activities which have traditionally been within your ministry. We know that your government has ended the Anti-Racism Secretariat. There's nothing to replace it. There's no reference to anti-racism, the programs, to any kinds of initiatives. There is nothing that deals with how you are going to carry out your responsibility to fight racial discrimination.

The document, quite frankly, Minister, lays bare the depth of your government's commitment to anti-racism initiatives. It just isn't there. There is no commitment. So can you tell us why there's nothing in your priority document on anti-racism?

Hon Ms Mushinski: In response to the honourable member's question, let me tell you that racism and discrimination are against the law in this province. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is the body to deal effectively with incidents of racism and discrimination, and we are strengthening the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If anyone is committed to eradicating racism and discrimination from this province, this government is.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, clearly the opposition, the people of Ontario, the students, the teachers and the parents of Ontario feel that Bill 104 will continue the erosion of quality education in Ontario. There's absolutely no question about that.

I read with interest today an editorial where you pledged to regulate smaller class sizes in elementary grades in Ontario. I read with interest a response to a concerned parent in Ontario where you said, "Studies indicate that smaller class sizes do not affect the quality of education after grade 3."

Minister, I have 30 years in elementary schools, so I know that elementary school goes from JK to grade 8. What do you mean by regulating class sizes and when are you going to regulate them?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): My education record has been criticized, but I want to assure the member opposite that I did not spend 30 years in elementary school.

I do think that class size is a concern and I don't want to make light of that. I believe we have to have a look at how we can control class size. There was a growth in class size in Ontario as a result of the social contract. That's a document that deliberately set out to increase class size in the province. That's not all right with my colleagues and it's not all right with myself.

We are looking at ways that we can assure the quality of education, and one of those quality measures, particularly in the early grades, is class size. So we are now looking at and examining with other people in education how we might do that and still retain some flexibility at the local level.

Mr Bartolucci: There are some places a minister shouldn't go, and talking about spending 30 years in elementary school is not one of them. I spent eight as a student and the rest as a teacher, so I would suggest to you that we not compare records about schooling.

Let me tell you, you have the process already. We have Bill 110, the School Class Sizes Act, which has received support from all three parties, that has been referred to the social development committee. I want to know, when will you tell your House leader that you want that bill called to committee so that we can debate in a meaningful way smaller class sizes?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the honourable member for clarifying his earlier statement.

We are looking at the private member's bill. Certainly the intent of it is consistent with our intent. However, I have talked to principals and others in our school system who want to make sure that whatever way we regulate class size works for them from a scheduling point of view; that we don't put a regulation forward or part of legislation that will not allow them the kind of local flexibility they need. As principals have pointed out to me, if they don't have some flexibility in local scheduling, they often have split classes, and there are those who believe that's not good for the education of children.

We're talking to people who are in the classrooms, to people who are in charge of making the education system work. We want to make sure that whatever regulations we bring forward work in their best interests and the students' best interests. So we'll continue to do that, and I thank you for bringing it forward today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): If scheduling is the problem, we'd be quite willing to have it brought to committee immediately. Whatever you like; we're willing to go that way today.

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Education and Training. It's in regard to the draft guidelines for the so-called Education Improvement Commission. One of the amendments the government made to Bill 104 was to remove the EIC's retroactive approval of school boards' 1997 budgets.

The draft guidelines quote the bill and say with regard to the question of reserve funds, "From the day Bill 104 receives royal assent to December 31, 1997, an existing board shall not transfer money between or among reserves or reserve funds or change the purpose or designation of a reserve or reserve fund without prior approval of the commission."

However, immediately under that, in the guidelines, the EIC says, "From 1997, reserve funds and reserves for working funds should remain at the levels reported in the boards' 1996 financial statements." In essence, the EIC is reinstituting the retroactivity --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Wildman: -- which isn't right, because they do it up to now or not --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, we appreciate it. Thank you for your question. Minister of Education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I find it surprising that the member for Algoma would rise on that matter today in this House. The member must have heard from people in the education community. There were trustees in this building today, there were parents in this building today, there were students in this building today who were pleading for the passage of Bill 104 because they want the Education Improvement Commission up and running. They want to make a smooth transition from an old system where there were inequities in the funding to a new system where we focus our finances on the students and teachers in this province and where we have a fair funding model for each and every student.

Yet today the member for Algoma has, I believe, delayed the House beginning question period. They've delayed the passage of this bill, or at least attempted to delay the passage of this bill this day, I think; and in the past the filibuster on Bill 103 took up more time in this Legislature than your government spent in the last year of your government in this Legislature and in the proper legislative fashion. I find it absolutely unbelievable that you rise today --

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Algoma.

1550

Mr Wildman: In all of that verbiage there was no answer to the question. The minister has said to boards that they can neither cut programs nor increase property taxes this year. Some boards have decided that the only way they can accomplish this is by using their reserve funds to make up for the cuts in provincial grants.

The Lambton board of education is using $1.2 million from its reserve fund. The Sault Ste Marie board is considering using $1.5 million from reserves. Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board is using $1.5 million, half of its reserve fund. Other boards, the Sudbury board, the Windsor separate school board, the Fort Frances-Rainy River public board, the Carleton Board of Education, are all transferring reserve funds.

My question in relation to these guidelines from the Education Improvement Commission is: Are these boards going to find their budgets rejected and sent back by the Education Improvement Commission because they are dipping into reserve funds now?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear about this. There are a number of boards across the province which have expressed to me the wish to have the Education Improvement Commission in place to help them in this transition, to answer those and many more questions. That's the purpose of the Education Improvement Commission. That's the reason we put that into that legislation. We've watched as other systems in Canada have moved from older systems to a new system and we want to make sure that we get this right and that the transition is smooth and doesn't affect students. That's why the EIC is in Bill 104.

There's one person in this House who has kept the Education Improvement Commission from being in place, from helping school boards and from answering those questions, and that's the member for Algoma. He should look in the mirror and ask himself that question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise in the House today with a question for the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization. As members in the House know, that minister is also responsible for the auto insurance portfolio.

Many seniors and hardworking constituents in Durham East have called me and they're very pleased with the changes our minister has made to the insurance industry. For instance, on April 18 there was a news release by the Ontario Insurance Commission indicating reductions in premiums of as much as 9%.

I also read recently in a news article that between the insurance industry and the health care providers there are discussions ongoing with medical fee schedules. Perhaps you could explain to the members in the House today, Minister.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): The member for Durham East is quite clear that this government's goal when we reviewed auto insurance was to reduce costs of auto insurance products so that we could have reduced premiums, stable premium bases for Ontario drivers.

While I was working through Bill 59, I requested that the industry and health practitioners initiate bilateral discussions to help control the costs of the accident benefits component of the auto plan. I understand that they have had those discussions, and they are continuing. They are coming to grips with a very difficult issue that was imposed upon them by the previous government, which didn't want to have that type of control, to come to grips with how costs are allocated and what services are appropriate for accident victims in Ontario. I'm hoping that they get that report to me as soon as possible and frankly provide some additional benefit to Ontario drivers through Bill 59.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, you mentioned that Bill 59 contains a number of measures aimed at controlling costs. I wonder if you could elaborate on that point and tell the members in the House today whether auto insurance rates have indeed declined since you have introduced Bill 59.

Hon Mr Sampson: I'm quite happy to say that since the introduction of Bill 59 we have had three consecutive quarters of history of that act in action. Each particular quarter has proved to produce rate reductions in the neighbourhood of 4% to 5% for each quarter for Ontario drivers. But the challenge is not over. I think our role as a government is to continue to manage that system to the benefit of Ontario drivers. The plan is there for Ontario drivers and we mean to put them back in the driver's seat.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is for the Minister of Health, but in his absence I will go to the minister responsible for seniors issues. Minister, you will recall the Common Sense Revolution promise that there would be no user fees for health care. You will recall your leader Mike Harris was quoted as saying, "Under this plan there will be no new user fees," and "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut."

Despite these promises, you shamelessly imposed new user fees on prescription drugs needed by sick seniors, people on social assistance, sick children, the disabled and people with mental disabilities. Last year in this House the minister said that seniors of this province don't mind paying a few dollars, being generous, to help other fellow Canadian citizens, Ontario citizens.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Yorkview. Minister.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I want to thank the member opposite for raising this question in the House and bringing to the attention of all members that on the entire face of this planet, the last totally free public drug plan existed here in the province of Ontario. I also want to advise the member opposite that, as of today, it is still the lowest cost, to the consumer, drug plan in all the world. As such, we have been able as a government to preserve the benefits, and in fact improve the benefits, for the drug plan in Ontario.

I sat in this Legislature for 12 years and watched two previous governments reduce benefits, where seniors would have to go into their pockets and their purses to come up with $50, $100, $200, $300 for medication which the governments of those days routinely took off the drug formulary. This government is very proud of the fact that it has increased the drug benefit plan in this province by over 300 drugs. That is good news for seniors and those who rely on that plan in this province.

Mr Sergio: The seniors of this province tell me that your government's program is only aimed at profit-making, that this government is not listening to their concerns. Many seniors are going without proper prescriptions. They have to choose between buying food, paying rent or paying for prescriptions, and you're picking the last cents out of the pockets of seniors to pay for your ill-thought-out tax cut. The seniors tell you, we have been telling you, and we are telling you, that mandatory user fees are wrong.

To add insult to injury, seniors are very dismayed at this particular time to find out that the $100 annual fee, which started in July of last year, is only providing for barely nine months of service.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Sergio: The question is this: Is this a scam? Is this the way to balance your books, on the backs of the seniors? I'm asking you, my question is this --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: Again, I'm very pleased the member opposite has raised the question because the reason that the non-full-year implementation of the plan --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Yorkview, I appreciate the fact that it is difficult but everyone gets the same amount of time to put their questions.

Mr Sergio: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Well, there's a point of privilege. I'll hear a point of privilege.

Mr Sergio: Call it whatever you want. Let me say this, with all due respect, that I watch very carefully when other members ask questions in the House and when you mention "Question," you give them time to put the question. I did not receive the same privilege. May I have the question, please?

The Speaker: Well, I can tell you, I gave you the same privilege. I know it may seem like I didn't because you were maybe caught up in the excitement, but I gave you --

Mr Sergio: Will you give me time to put the question?

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, I've heard your point of privilege. I gave you exactly the same amount of time everyone gets. I'm sorry; maybe you could tighten the question next time. Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to respond directly to the member opposite's question with respect to the fact that the reason that three months are missing is a direct result of the federal Liberal government's inability --

Interjections.

1600

Hon Mr Jackson: The point is that the federal government took three and a half to four months to give the information to the province of Ontario in order to implement its drug plan adjustments. When you add that lack of cooperation and direction from the federal Liberal government, you also add the $2.1 billion which the federal government has shorted the Ontario health plan. I'll tell you, the Ontario government is very pleased --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Windsor-Sandwich, Kingston and The Islands, Sudbury and Essex-Kent -- sorry, Essex South.

Interjections.

Interjection: Windsor-Walkerville.

The Speaker: No, it's Windsor-Sandwich. Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: Might I recommend that the member opposite shorten his question and ask the federal Liberals where the $2.1 billion is for Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You fulfilled my guess. You blamed the feds.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines. New question, third party.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I suspect we're going to hear answers like that more often than not over the next few weeks, so I ask my Liberal colleagues not to get too sensitive.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Your question's to?

Mr Silipo: My question, in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is to the government House leader, who I know will be very interested in this question.

We've been noting with interest reports in the media about how you've got your megacity transition team all ready to go. It looks quite frankly like the biggest collection of Conservative and government buddies ever assembled. We've got Paul Sutherland, an unsuccessful Tory candidate; John Wimbs, a long-time Tory alderman from Scarborough; Michael Gee, a well-known Tory and former Toronto councillor; pro-megacity Metro councillor Lois Griffin; and of course we've got dear old Alan Tonks, the biggest megacity-boosting Metro chair.

But what we don't have on this list is someone who reflects the 76% of the people who said no to the megacity, not one on the list we're seeing. I want to ask simply this: Where are the people who opposed the megacity on this list? Why are none of them being considered on the transition team?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, what I should say is that the member opposite is reading from press clippings. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has not made any announcement. I, today, obviously cannot make any announcement. So this is all speculation at this point in time. It may indeed prove to be true; it may prove to be untrue. But it's very difficult for me to comment on speculation that is in the media.

I know the member is referring, for example, to an article in the Toronto Sun where there are six people referred to. I personally know all the people involved and can only speak very highly of each and every one of them, and can only say that if at some point in the future the minister did make an announcement that involved these people, they would certainly serve the people of Metropolitan Toronto very well in my estimation.

Mr Silipo: The minister will understand that if we just go on past record we've seen these kinds of leaks out before, the day before the announcements are made; that's the pattern, Minister.

Let me ask you something else on which I think you can, if you want to, give a very clear answer and that is, when your government appointed the co-chairs of the education implementation commission on the education side on Bill 104, you at least in that process had the appointment of those individuals subject to the review process we have here under the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions.

I want to ask you with respect to the appointments to the transition team, as well as the appointments to the financial advisory board, because those earlier appointments of course still have to be made given that they were ruled to be illegal by the court, will you at least undertake to have those appointments to the transition team and the financial advisory team be subject to review by the government agencies committee?

Hon David Johnson: I'm not in any position to give such an undertaking. I'll be happy to relay the views of the member opposite to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but then it would be up to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in terms of how he proposes to proceed with this.

In terms of the individuals involved, I know that the first individual he mentioned, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, is not exactly a well-known Progressive Conservative. As a matter of fact, Mr Tonks ran in the riding of York South against the previous Premier of the province. It was a very close race, as I recall, but the Premier won. As I recall, at that point Mr Tonks ran for the Liberal Party. Knowing some of the other individuals involved here, I'm pretty sure that not all the others are classified as Progressive Conservatives either.

But whether they'll be appointed, I don't know. I'll be happy to bring your suggestions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I'm sure you'll be more than happy with the people on the transition team.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Recently the member for Port Arthur in a member's statement warned that because of Bill 109, your Local Control of Public Libraries Act, many municipalities, especially smaller municipalities, northern municipalities, were in danger of losing their local libraries.

Minister, can you tell me whether this is a legitimate concern on behalf of these municipalities, or is it another example of Liberal fearmongering?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for Chatham-Kent for his question. I think it's particularly fitting that the very last speaker at the standing committee on Bill 109 was a representative from a small northern community. Sandra Weitzel, the head librarian for communities in and around the Wawa area -- that's way north in northern Ontario -- spoke to the committee, and what she said was that times have changed, fortunes have changed, ways of doing business have changed, and the proposed amendments seem to make the library system more fair in terms of funding and more accountable in terms of governance to the communities who support and use them.

If the library community in Wawa looks confidently to the future of library service, why can't the member for Port Arthur?

Mr Carroll: The member for Port Arthur also indicated that under your proposed changes, citizen participation in library boards would probably disappear. Would you comment on whether this is also a valid concern?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Please allow me to quote from the library board chairman of Chatham, Irene Carey. She said to the London Free Press that she's not worried about citizens losing control of their libraries. Councils rely on the general public in areas of culture, and she doesn't believe that council members would get involved in deciding who does what and who does not and what does not go on the shelves.

May I remind the member again that the city manager in Chatham, Hugh Thomas, has been the chief executive officer for the Chatham library board since 1993. Not only has the board not disappeared under this leadership, but it's actually thriving and provides excellent service for all the people in the community.

1610

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Labour. On April 9 in a conversation with me you told me you were willing to establish a commission to review the Goldcorp mine strike, which is now approaching one year in duration. It's my understanding that you have now refused to acknowledge that you were actually willing to establish such a commission. I'm just wondering if you're still in favour, or do you deny raising with me the establishment of a commission to look into this strike which is now, as I say, approaching one year in length?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would simply indicate to you that there was a headline in your press release which indicated, "Miclash Receives Commitment from Labour Minister to Establish a Disputes Advisory Commission for Goldcorp Strike," and you go on to state, "I'm pleased the minister has finally decided to intervene and use her office to bring an end to this dispute."

That information is totally inconsistent with any information I provided to you. I indicated to you that we had been closely monitoring the strike and were looking at each and every avenue that would be available to us to bring it to a conclusion, and that on eight occasions our mediation people have worked to bring it to a conclusion.

Yes, we do have the opportunity of looking at two different commissions. We can take a look --

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

Mr Miclash: Minister, I could take it from your answer so far that you are willing to go ahead with this advisory commission. I wouldn't have mentioned the advisory commission to the press if you had not mentioned it to me. I had to go and do my research to find out what a commission would do, what it would be. There's no way that I knew of such a commission. In this House on April 9, you said to me that you would have an advisory commission set up to help these folks resolve the problems. The strike is now approaching one year. When can the folks look for the advisory commission to be set up?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply indicate to you that we have been monitoring the situation and yes, there is an opportunity for the Ministry of Labour to use two different commissions: One is a disputes advisory commission and the other is an industrial inquiry commission. However, neither has the power to end a labour dispute, so I would indicate to you that you provided some very misleading information in your press release.

The Speaker: Minister of Labour, that is out of order.

Mr Miclash: Obviously, you were lying to me, then.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora is out of order as well.

I ask the Minister of Labour to withdraw that, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I will do so.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Member for Kenora, I would ask you to withdraw that as well.

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, somebody has to --

The Speaker: No, I'm not into a debate here.

Mr Miclash: You told me that.

The Speaker: Member for Kenora, I am going to warn you for the last time: Either withdraw it or I'll have to name you.

Mr Miclash: One year in length. The minister told --

The Speaker: I name the member for Kenora, Frank Miclash. The member for Kenora will withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Miclash was escorted from the chamber.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to your government's proposed permanent charitable casinos. I've got two different answers from the government. From the Premier, he has not indicated that you would give any consideration to the fact that a community objects to the imposition of a charitable casino or, if there is a bylaw in place, that you would respect the municipal bylaw. I've seen reports of your comments in the newspapers saying, "If the community doesn't want one of these, we're not going to force it on it."

Let me tell you very clearly, Beaches-Woodbine does not want a permanent charitable casino in our neighbourhood. We have made that very clear. Tell us, how much more clearly do we have to state that to you? What do we have to do? Will you commit to me today that you will not force a charitable casino on the community of Beaches?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It's quite unfortunate that the honourable member doesn't realize that there is quite a lot of benefit from the charity gaming clubs.

We're trying to address a problem which really was created by the Peterson government with the advent of the three-day Monte Carlos which were introduced without any type of accountability, particularly to the charities. As a former municipal councillor, many of us who have shared the municipal experience know full well that after three-day events quite often charities do not benefit by one cent out of the old roving casinos. This brings accountability into the system. It will bring accountability certainly to the charities. This is what we're trying to do.

Ms Lankin: That will be of little comfort to the community of Beaches-Woodbine. It's not that I need to realize that these are of great benefit. The people in my community do not want a casino operation in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. Don't tell me that there is benefit from this. You're talking about changing dramatically from an operation where there was a Monte Carlo that would operate for a few hours a day in a church basement or in a banquet hall to a permanent site that's there seven days a week every day of the year, 24 hours a day, with addictive video slot machines, bets that go up to $100 a table instead of the maximum of $10. We don't want this in our community.

Minister, you've said in ink, in the press, that if communities don't want one, you won't force it. Give me that commitment here today. Beaches does not want a casino. Promise me you won't force one on our community.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The one commitment I will give is that through our new charity gaming clubs there will be accountability. That is what this is about: It's making sure there's integrity within the system and it's making sure there is accountability to charities.

I certainly wonder what the member is going to do in terms of the Monte Carlos going on currently down in the Beaches area, which are benefiting the charities. These will now be part of the charity gaming club and will be replaced. I would think the charities within her own area would want to make sure they get funding.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that we now proceed to orders of the day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Okay, let's go to motions.

Hon David Johnson: Surprise! Mr Speaker, I know the feeling. Every once in a while --

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mr Snobelen moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 104, an Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm introducing the Fewer School Boards Act for third reading today in response to the public's demand for a more responsive education system, one that focuses on providing a higher quality of education to all students in this province. Ontarians want less bureaucracy in their children's education and more emphasis on high-quality standards in the classroom. They want achievements, not apologies.

The Fewer School Boards Act would reduce the number of school boards and the number of trustees overseeing education in Ontario. This legislation will result in trim and efficient school boards and trustees whose main focus is on classrooms, not on boardrooms. It will allow us to shift resources to support priorities identified by parents, taxpayers and successive governments in this province. It will allow us to address the issues identified in 24 separate reviews on finance and governance since 1950, including two royal commissions, 10 commissions and committees, and two fact-finding reports.

While the need for reform has been endlessly studied, the system has largely remained static. For too long the people of this province have watched as province after province has embarked on long-overdue reforms of their education systems. The status quo is no longer possible. Every other jurisdiction in Canada has either reformed their education system or is poised to do so. By standing still, Ontario is falling further behind. Each day that we delay reform means our students have even further to catch up.

1620

Today I want to assure the students of Ontario that we will no longer sit on the sidelines as others move ahead. The Fewer School Boards Act is a building block to better education. By reducing administration and duplication, we can now with confidence focus resources on the individual student and the teacher in the classroom.

This government has stated clearly that it is committed to ensuring all Ontarians have access to a high-quality education, one that puts our money where our students are: in the classrooms of this province. Previous governments have tried to reshape education by applying new programs and priorities piecemeal on to an already overburdened foundation. In the end their changes were cosmetic, giving the short-term illusion of being fresh starts, but in reality not delivering the much-needed change.

The need for profound change is obvious. Last year alone Ontarians spent more than $13 billion on elementary and secondary education, yet our students' performance on national and international tests continues to lag behind. It's no wonder parents are concerned about whether their children are learning what they need to learn to thrive in our complex society. It's no wonder taxpayers aren't convinced they're getting a good return on their investment in education.

The Fewer School Boards Act is the first step in bringing improvements to the quality and scope of the education we are able to provide for all children in Ontario. The hallmarks of Ontario's new education system will be high, consistent, province-wide standards and accountability. Our standards will be clear, measurable and comprehensive in all grades. The new revised curriculum will be the same across the province.

Our government is committed to a new curriculum for grades 1 through 9 in language, math, science and technology, and those standards will be released in the coming months. This rigorous and demanding new curriculum, which will be consistent across the province, is the first stage in building a complete curriculum that provides a solid foundation in the basics. It will focus on reading, writing, spelling, grammar, math, science, geography, technology and Canadian history. It will also renew programs in the arts, physical education and other subjects.

Education reform is an ongoing process. It's one of the most rewarding tasks of this government. We are working on changes now to support the future success of our youngest citizens. Secondary school is one of those changes. We want to give our students a competitive advantage as they prepare for a knowledge-based global economy. That's why we have just completed consultations on secondary school reform. We heard from more than 20,000 individuals and groups. This valuable input will form the basis of this government's decisions on the structure and content of the secondary school program in Ontario.

While much consultation still needs to take place and some changes will not be in place for one, two or more years, I can now say that education reform is under way in Ontario. The Education Quality and Accountability Office has begun to conduct province-wide testing of students so that parents will know whether their child has learned what is expected. Our commitment to parents is that they will know exactly what their children are expected to know, learn and be able to do at various stages of their schooling. One way we will be able to do that is through a new, understandable report card that allows them to see clearly how their children are doing.

Just as we will open the way for greater parent participation on school councils, we are also inviting parent feedback on government initiatives. Beginning this year, we're going to publish our own report card and ask the public and parents to grade our efforts. We believe it's the best way to make the system more accountable.

We need to reform the education system to ensure our children a solid foundation upon which to build their lives, a foundation upon which Ontario's future prosperity depends.

During the transition period, we will stabilize funding to boards at existing levels so they can plan and prepare for the changes that lie ahead. Since budgets will remain stable, parents should expect that boards will maintain class size and existing programs and activities.

Beginning in September 1998 we will distribute education funding to school boards through a new fair funding model that we are currently developing. The new model will recognize the cost of educating students, including special circumstances such as students learning English as a second language, students with special needs and students in remote communities. It will also address the accommodation needs of school boards by outlining a new capital allocation process.

It will respond to the concerns of our large urban boards, which are the largest recipients of new immigrants not only to Ontario but to Canada, and of smaller boards in the north which must meet the very high costs of transportation and heating. We will be releasing a proposal for the new funding model in the coming months.

This government has made a choice. We want education dollars to go where we believe they provide the best value: to students and teachers in the classrooms across this province. At the same time, we are focusing on ensuring that we will build high province-wide standards of education where excellence is the norm for all.

We will streamline administrative overhead by reducing the number of major school boards and replacing them with new district school boards, effective January 1, 1998. Where possible, the district boards will fall on municipal boundaries. We'll be retaining the small isolate and hospital boards as school authorities.

The Fewer School Boards Act is the first step towards cutting the number of major school boards in Ontario. In addition, we'll replace varying school board pay for trustees with an honorarium of no more than $5,000 per year. These measures would help ensure the Fewer School Boards Act would also mean fewer school board officials earning $100,000 per year or more. We are also reducing the number of trustees.

Finally, to make sure these reforms take place in an organized and careful way, we are proposing to establish the Education Improvement Commission to work with local communities, including trustees, teachers, parents and other stakeholders, to guide the process of change. I'm delighted that Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone have agreed to assume the role of co-chairs of this proposed commission. Dave and Ann have extensive experience in Ontario's education system and I know they will provide continuity and leadership throughout this transition period.

As members are aware, the government proposed a number of changes to the act to help ensure a smooth transition to the new school boards. We listened to Ontario parents, educators and taxpayers during the process of hearings and other consultations. As a result, we believe we have a better piece of legislation that ensures these long-awaited changes will happen through a well-managed process.

Let me outline these amendments again briefly.

We agreed to introduce greater flexibility into the act by making it easier for school boards to report to the Education Improvement Commission. We agreed that financial controls on school boards for 1997 would not be retroactive prior to royal assent of the bill. We also agreed to help provide effective mechanisms to resolve local issues relating to the transition to district school boards.

I believe these changes will smooth the transition process to a new system of education governance. I'd like to convey my personal thanks to the parents, taxpayers and educators who shared their views during these consultations.

In closing, I want to thank the members of the standing committee who travelled across the province to listen to the public. Their work has allowed us to improve this legislation. In addition, I want to thank the school board officials, teachers, students and parents who have taken the time to provide valuable comment on this issue. I can assure you that your continued support will be vital.

Responsibility lies with all of us to act together to bring about these changes. In doing that, we are returning public trust to Ontario's education system.

We introduced Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, as a key component in our comprehensive strategy to enhance classroom learning and student achievement. There is no question that the world our children will graduate into will be quite different from the one we see around us today. The reforms that we are making will ensure that Ontario's students will not be left behind.

We owe that to our students, who are as capable as students anywhere in the world and have the right to a challenging education. We owe it to parents, who have the right to know that their children's education is second to none. We also owe it to our classroom teachers, who through consistent province-wide standards can be assured that the students coming into their classes have the skills they need to succeed. And we owe it to taxpayers, who need to know that their education dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. We can do that by bringing greater balance and common sense to our school governance system.

I urge your support of this bill to ensure that our education system keeps its priority on classrooms, not boardrooms. That is how we'll encourage Ontario students to move to the head of the class.

1630

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions? Further debate?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): As I rise to participate in the debate, I wonder if there is consent of the House for me to split the time with the member for St Catharines and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, should that appear appropriate.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for that? Agreed.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I have to say at the outset that I am not pleased to be participating in this debate today, but I think there are some things that have to be said about the bill and about the process that brings us, sadly, to this point of third and final reading.

I feel very strongly that this bill should not be here today. I don't believe this bill should be here before this Legislature at all, but it should certainly not be here to be rammed through in defiance of all the concerns that have been expressed by trustees indeed, by teachers most certainly, by board employees, but most particularly concerns that have been expressed by students and by parents, people who are genuinely concerned about education and the future of education in this province.

The minister has spoken about the concerns that parents have. We've heard those concerns repeatedly as people have come to understand what this bill and this government's agenda are all about. Those people who are genuinely concerned about the future of education are worried about this bill. They believe this bill will lead almost inevitably to the loss of local governance in education and they are fearful of this government's real agenda: the gutting of public education when the government takes control over educational funding.

Over and over again, presenters to the committee in its public hearings have said that this bill on the amalgamation of school boards is only one piece of a puzzle. They want to know what the other pieces of the puzzle look like, what the whole puzzle is going to look like when this government's agenda is fully, irrevocably revealed in its impact on publicly funded education. They want to know what comes next.

They want to know, for example, what's going to happen to the hundreds of contracts that are going to have to be renegotiated after amalgamation takes place, how many more teachers and board employees are going to be out of work and how much larger our class sizes are going to be because of what is referred to as the "harmonization" of all of these contracts. They want to know what funding will actually be in place when this government takes over. They want to know what what the government refers to as "equal funding" is actually going to mean to students under the new funding formula.

The minister again today, moments ago, has said there will be this new funding formula. People are saying, "Show us now." If you know how this is going to help students, if you know how this is going to put money into the classroom, if you know how this is going to improve the education system, tell us now and show us the money that is going to provide the resources that will make that happen. But that's just one of the pieces of the puzzle the minister wants to talk about but doesn't want to show us.

Even the Franco-Ontarians, who understandably welcome, as we do -- there is one small part of this bill which we can take some pleasure in, and that is the extension of increased French-language governance in education. They have said to us over and over again, «Le financement, c'est le nerf de la guerre.» "Show us the money. What resources will we have as we take over this governance to meet the needs of our students?" That is the universal question. These are all legitimate questions, and there are no answers from this minister or this government.

People who came to our committee expressed amazement that any government would rush through legislation that mandates such sweeping changes when there are no answers to these questions. They fear that the ministry doesn't actually know how all of this is going to work, that the details will all have to be worked out later, and that gives these concerned individuals no reassurance whatsoever. In fact it's just the opposite, because when people see the government's determination to rush this through, even when there are no answers to the most fundamental questions about how it's going to work or what it's going to cost, when the plans for implementation, for working out the details are all going to be left to this non-elected, non-democratic, non-accountable Education Improvement Commission, those people understandably ask, "What is the hurry?"

Over and over again, people have come to this committee, and it was especially true for parent councils, and said: "Slow down. Take the time to get it right." There are members in the government caucus who were present at those hearings. They'll remember that refrain over and over again: "What's your hurry? Slow down. Take the time to get it right."

There was one representative of a ratepayers' group who was called by the Conservatives to present to the committee, I think expecting a somewhat sympathetic presentation on the bill. This was somebody who does corporate mergers on a regular basis, he's a man who has experience in bringing together different organizations, and he said so clearly, "You cannot make this kind of amalgamation work unless you take the time to get it right, unless you make it absolutely clear that you know where you're going and you take the time to bring people along with you."

This government has not taken the time to get it right and they certainly haven't taken any interest in bringing people along with them, the very people who are going to be needed if this is actually to improve education for students in our system.

The only answer that was given to the question of "Why are you in such a hurry?" was -- and this is a direct quotation from the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, who somewhat sadly is no longer the parliamentary assistant, because I think he did try to really listen to the presentations that were made and genuinely expressed some concern for the questions that were being raised. It was Mr Skarica, who is no longer parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He is the one who simply won't be bullied by the Premier.

Mrs McLeod: Indeed. But the parliamentary assistant on this particular occasion was giving the minister's answer. "Why are you in such a hurry?" The answer that came back, duly reported by the parliamentary assistant to the minister, was that the government wants the savings as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter if you don't take the time to get it right, it doesn't matter if you don't bother to consult, it doesn't matter if you don't work with people to bring them along with you so that this can be done well. The government needs the savings and it needs them in a hurry.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): To pay for that tax cut.

Mrs McLeod: That's right, to pay for the tax cut. The problem is that that doesn't hold up as an answer; it doesn't hold up as a responsible answer to the people who are concerned; it doesn't hold up as an answer on the basis of the facts, because the government itself is only projecting savings that would represent less than 1% of the entire education budget. That is hardly enough to provide the dollars that are needed to help fund Mike Harris's tax cut.

The second reason the answer that we need the savings in a hurry doesn't hold up is because every study that has been done on the amalgamation of school boards questions whether there are any savings to be found. The Minister of Education can bring in as many wheelbarrows of studies as he would like to do, he can say as often as he wishes that the time for study is past; if he would only read one of those studies, he would find that it said it is entirely likely that amalgamation will cost more, not less, and that the savings, the less than 1% of the educational budget, the minister hopes to find through this massive change in school board governance are simply not going to be there.

Even the Premier, in earlier times and wearing a different hat, had said that amalgamations always cost more. In this case the Premier's sort of instinctive belief about that is backed up by every study that has been done on school board amalgamation. They cost more, and certainly they cost more at the beginning, with all of the costs of harmonization, with all of the severance costs of the people who are going to lose their jobs in this hunt for the so-called savings, the very costs that those school boards are going to have to pay for in the first six months when the minister says he has given them something he called "stable funding," so as they have to pay for all those startup costs that the minister won't even admit are there, they're going to have to take those costs right out of the classrooms and the support for children in those classrooms.

So why the rush? What is the real reason this government can't take the time to get it right? Why won't the minister even talk about the costs of all this? I think it's because the government wants to rush this bill through before too many people actually realize how bad it is. If the government had had its preferences, I well recall, there would have been no public hearings at all on a bill that it considered to be minor.

1640

"After all," said the government House leader directly to me when I was expressing my amazement that on a bill with this mammoth impact there would be no public hearings, "there's no money in the bill." Exactly. That's one of the things that worries people. "If this bill is going to work," they say, "show us the money."

But the government doesn't want people to know too much. They just don't want people to see too many pieces of the puzzle. They want this done, and the minister wants it irreversible, before the consequences are fully understood. Once this piece of the puzzle, that may seem to be not a huge piece of the puzzle, is in place, once school boards are rendered completely ineffective with this reorganization, it will be easier to force the other pieces of the puzzle through. In fact, some of the pieces, like dealing with teachers' contracts, will actually become necessary in order to deal with the chaos this Minister of Education is about to launch.

I think the confusion is only increased by the ease with which this minister makes statements that are not backed by facts. He says he will pay the costs of transition, but the ministry says clearly in writing it will not. The minister himself brought in an amendment to his bill that says boards will pay the cost of transitions. This minister says he's going to fund junior kindergarten, but he's already cut the funding in half for junior kindergarten. This minister says he will mandate class sizes, but there is no guarantee that he'll back up that regulation with any dollars that will be needed. It will be like early retirement for teachers that the Minister of Education and the Premier talked about, how they're going to revitalize the teaching force and give job opportunities to new young teaching graduates with a 50-50 funding proposal. Except when the teachers got to the table, there was no money on the table. This minister is great at offering reassurances, but there is never any money behind it, because this minister is looking to take money out of the system.

This is not about education reform; it is certainly not about the curriculum reform that for some unknown reason the minister felt he had to focus on today as he presents his bill on school board amalgamation. There's nothing about curriculum reform in this bill; there's nothing about curriculum. There's nothing about teaching kids in this bill.

This bill is about two things: One thing is the taking of dollars out of education and the other thing is about John Snobelen's own need to make change, any change. It is about John Snobelen's belief, indeed, that to bring about change you first have to create a crisis. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know where he's going. The vision of where he's going is going to come later when he figures out what he's going to do next and when he sees what he has actually done.

John Snobelen doesn't believe in reform. He has said very clearly, and I quote him directly, "Improvement is the enemy of change." What John Snobelen believes in is radical change, a leap into the unknown. John Snobelen himself has very clearly said that the way to force an organization off the cliff into that great unknown is to drive your changes through against all resistance or to bankrupt the organization so that it is forced to jump. Today I believe John Snobelen is preparing to do both. He is going to force through his changes despite all the concerns that have been raised, and he is without doubt ready to bankrupt the system even more than he has already.

How convenient it is that bankrupting the system, which is Mr Snobelen's way to bring about change, will also let Mr Snobelen deliver far more than the projected $150 million in savings to the Harris tax cut. The minister has already boasted that he can deliver $1.2 billion. The Premier has said that he needs at least $1 billion from education. When John Snobelen takes control of educational funding, he will at last have the power to deliver the dollars his Premier needs. That's the other reason the government wants to rush this through: It really does need the money to pay for the tax cut. The problem is that no one actually knows where that $1 billion is going to come from.

Their other problem is that none of it is working out too well. The little problem of what to offload on to the municipalities so that the government could get its hands on the education budget -- because the two things go together: They want control of educational funding so they can make cuts, but they can't afford to just take it over and pay for it, so they've got to offload costs on to the municipalities. This is the big downloading argument. It's proving somewhat difficult politically.

I really don't think the government has given very much thought to the human and the social consequences of offloading welfare, long-term care, social housing, public health and child care on to municipalities. But they are clearly disturbed that the municipalities actually figured out what was happening before it was a done deal, probably before the government had figured it out. I don't think the municipalities have had time to think a lot about the human, social and community consequences of all of this, but they do know that they don't like to be conned, they do know that they don't like an extra $1 billion dropped on top of their property tax base, and they are clearly not taking this quietly.

The government's downloading plan is in absolute chaos. Their proposal to take over educational financing is dependent on the downloading on to municipalities, and this bill amalgamating school boards cannot work if the government doesn't take over educational financing. The fact that the downloading plan is in chaos is a reason why this bill should be withdrawn today, because the government cannot make this work unless it solves the other parts of this puzzle.

As the education critic and as somebody who has devoted a lot of years to the concerns of public education, the question for me is, where does all of this leave public education? As these changes are forced through despite all of the concerns and all the unanswered questions, as the minister prepares to bankrupt the system and create so much chaos that any organized resistance may prove to be impossible, what happens to kids in all of this? I wonder whether anybody over there cares what happens to kids in all of this.

I am not convinced, and I say this with genuine regret because over some 30 years in politics I've worked with a lot of ministers of education, that this minister cares about much more than delivering $1 billion to his buddy the Premier. Anyway, this minister would assure us that any change is better than no change at all, just don't resist change, don't be part of the status quo; don't worry about where we're going, don't worry about who gets hurt in the process, just get things going. So Bill 104 is about to be bullied through today.

We've seen this government bully things through before. We saw it with Bill 26, the original bully bill. One of the most notorious things Bill 26 gave us, as I suggested yesterday, was the non-elected, non-accountable, arm's-length, all-powerful Health Services Restructuring Commission, which is well on its way to destroying health care in this province. Now we are about to have a similar arm's-length, non-elected, non-accountable education commission, whose decisions will only be challengeable in court if they are constitutional issues, because even this government has to be a bit careful about constitutional challenges until it can figure out some creative way to get around it.

The commission on education, like the commission on health care, will take this legislation and put the flesh on it, they'll make it real, they'll put all the details in place, according, perhaps, to their own views on how the world should work or according to the views of a government that prefers to work in the backrooms and not in the open, where the public might actually challenge its agenda. We have seen how political the Health Services Restructuring Commission is proving to be. I think the Education Improvement Commission will be just as political, and not arm's length from this minister at all.

We had a minimum number of hearings, because we insisted on them on this bill, when at least 1,000 people who wanted to be heard were shut out. We had four brief hours reviewing the concerns that were presented. We had four brief hours presenting amendments to try to make the bill better. At the end of those four hours the time that was allocated to even pretend to consider amendments ran out and they just simply said, "Consider them all to be read." There was no further debate.

Now we have third reading on a bill that's virtually unchanged in response to all the concerns that were heard, except where the government had to fix a glaring mistake like the fact that they forgot that as of January 1, 1998, according to this bill, there would be no employers in our school systems, none of the current employees would have a legal employer, and nobody would actually own the assets and liabilities of the existing boards, so they had to fix that small drafting mistake, and they gave some token acknowledgement to a couple of areas where the outrage was particularly great. I trust there will be time to touch on those areas before I finish.

1650

This bill is no less wrong than it was in the first place and it is no less frightening in its likely consequences. I believe that this bill, along with its companion piece of government control over educational financing, threatens publicly funded education, and that unless we can continue to fight its implementation even after it passes, the damage that is done to public education could be irreversible.

There is no doubt at all that taking over funding and essentially taking over educational governance prepares the way for funding cuts. If you doubt that's true, I would refer you to the minister's own report, the one I'd like to think he had read, even if he hasn't read any of the other studies on school board amalgamation, his own Ernst and Young report on the savings through amalgamation, the $150 million that he keeps talking about.

There's another part to that report, because his own consultants expressed the concern in writing in that report that costs indeed could go up under this amalgamation, and the minister's response, also in writing, was essentially to say: "Don't worry. We're going to take over educational finance and then we can control the costs. We will take over and harmonize all those costs of harmonization, the harmonization of teachers' salaries, the harmonization of services. We'll take that over and we'll control the costs." In other words -- let me translate -- what that means is that the ministry will take over and they will cut. They will cut services or they will cut salaries, and in all likelihood they will do both.

I ask you just to think about the kinds of questions that parents asked when they came to our committee. I raised one in question period the other day. It was a parent council representative who pointed out that in the amalgamation taking place in her district, an amalgamation of four boards, one of the boards that was being forced into this amalgamation had decided that when the government cut its funds, they would do everything they could to hold on to junior kindergarten. So they kept their junior kindergarten program in that board, but they had to cut instrumental music and they had to cut French immersion.

Another of the boards that's being forced into that same amalgamation made the decision that French immersion was important to the children in that school district, but they didn't have enough resources to both manage French immersion and keep junior kindergarten, so they very sadly had to let their junior kindergarten program go. This parent came to our committee and she said in genuine concern, "When we're in this new amalgamated board, which program is the board going to keep?" In the name of everyone being equal, how are you going to determine whether everybody should have equal access to junior kindergarten or whether they should have equal access to French immersion?

Is the ministry going to fund both programs? Unlikely, because they certainly don't want the costs to go up, and they've already cut the funding. That's why the boards are facing these kinds of choices now. Or are both programs going to be lost? If you can't solve the problem by providing equality of access to junior kindergarten for all the students, equality of access to French immersion for all the students, maybe the only thing you can do is provide none of it to any of them. Which program is going to win and which students are going to lose? I think in any of the choices, all the students are going to be losers, as I believe that all the students in this province have been losers since this government began its program of cuts.

Yet this government is so anxious to get this bill passed that it has been trying to sell it, and I've been amazed watching this. They've been trying to sell it to the public, and in fact to their own backbenchers, because I hear the spin coming back to us from the government members on the committee.

Mr Bradley: The talking points they put out for the backbenchers.

Mrs McLeod: That's right. It's the talking points that they put out, as the member for St Catharines says, that try to sell this as a good-news bill. The government actually does not just put it out as talking points, I say to the member for St Catharines -- he'll want me to mention this -- because the government has actually been prepared to spend a lot of money to get out the message that this is a good-news bill. It's all part of the strategy to keep people calm by telling them what they want to believe, by telling them what the government wants people to believe, while the government covers up what it is actually doing. They spent a lot of money on those television ads that the member for St Catharines keeps raising.

Mr Bradley: Three quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money.

Mrs McLeod: Indeed, they spend three quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money in order that Mike Harris can come on television during the intermission of the hockey game -- there are a lot of intermissions in hockey games these days -- and tell us: "Things are fine. We're making things better. Relax and enjoy the game. Why should you worry?"

What I want to do with some of the remaining time is to look at Bill 104 and see why the government's so-called good-news bill is not good news at all. The government has said: "This bill is good news because it's about fewer school trustees." My goodness, don't we all think that having fewer politicians is a good idea? The government has used that with fewer provincial politicians. Two days ago they used it for fewer politicians in Metropolitan Toronto. Why would this not be good news for school boards too?

I suggest to you that this is not about fewer trustees. You could reduce the number of trustees without bringing in this kind of mammoth change, with all the consequences and all the costs that this is going to mean. This bill is about the eventual elimination of local governance and local decision-making. It makes boards unworkable. If the minister wanted fewer school boards and to still have workable school boards, he would have looked at something more like the task force proposals. I didn't agree with them all, but they made a lot more sense than these huge mega-boards that this minister is proposing -- deliberately large, deliberately unworkable, either because of their sheer geographic size in my part of the province, where some of those boards are larger than European countries, or in Metropolitan Toronto, where there will be 300,000 students, more than the entire province of New Brunswick.

We already have fewer boards per students than virtually every other province. The government keeps wanting to compare us to Alberta. In Alberta they have almost the same number of boards as we will have after this amalgamation, and we have four times as many students. Why did the minister choose such incredibly unworkable, unwieldy board boundaries? Why did he fly in the face of every other study that's been done? Because he wants them to be unworkable. He doesn't want trustees to be accessible to the electorate, and under these new boards, trustees will be virtually inaccessible to the electorate.

Then, of course, when the government takes control of educational funding, the trustee role really becomes untenable. They will have no financial flexibility. They will have no real accountability. All the decisions are going to be made in Queen's Park. As someone said -- in fact, I think it was the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association -- we will have centralized decision-making and decentralized blame. That will be all that's left to school trustees in this province, to be the whipping-post, the complaints bureau, so that the government and this minister can refuse to take any responsibility even though they are making all the decisions.

Eventually, because trustees are not accessible and they can no longer be accountable because they don't have control over the dollars, people will say, "Why do we elect trustees?" We originally elected trustees because they were to raise property taxes, because property taxes were to ensure that communities paid for the education of their children. If we're no longer having taxes at the property level, people are going to say, "Why have trustees?" That's why I believe this leads inevitably to the loss of school boards. This is about the dissolution of school boards, and it will lead to the loss of local decision-making.

I don't think there is much doubt that this is where the government wanted to go in the first place. I think boards are a convenient buffer for them so they don't have to accept responsibility, but they still offer the argument that parent councils can take the place of school boards anyway. Parent councils are important, there is no doubt about that, but as important as they are, 5,000 parent councils cannot individually lobby Queen's Park on behalf of the students in that school. They cannot do it, and as a result, if we lose our school boards, we will lose the effective advocacy that school trustees have provided for public education.

There is the other small fact that the minister chooses to overlook: that parent councils -- we had representation from literally hundreds of parent councils to our committee -- unanimously said they do not want to replace school boards. They are not prepared to do the work of trustees as volunteers. They do not want the added responsibility. They want to work to make their own schools better and they want parents in every school to have the same opportunity. They do not want to get into a school-by-school competition and they particularly -- and they said this over and over again -- do not want to be left with a 1-800-WHO-CARES number to call at Queen's Park when they are concerned about their children's education. So this is not just about fewer school trustees; this is about the loss of local governance and decision-making in education.

1700

The second reason the government offered to try and convince us all that this is a good-news bill is the companion piece: that this is about taking education off the property tax, and surely we'd agree that's a good idea. Well, I happen to be one of the people who spent a long time as a school trustee arguing that the province should pay more of the cost of education, that there should be less of the cost of education borne by the property taxpayer.

The theory of taking over educational funding 100% -- and I point out that the government's actually not paying 100%, because it is still going to tax business and commercial properties -- for the first time, Queen's Park will tax business and commercial properties -- but it's going to control 100% of the funding. In theory, maybe taking the $5.4 billion that we now pay in residential taxes for education off the property tax base might be a good idea, but the fact is, we've all seen the price of that tradeoff, and no one thinks the downloading of all the other social services on to municipalities is a good idea. Nobody but this government thought that idea made any sense at all.

I suggest that although I happen to be a believer that the province should pick up a greater proportion of education costs so that it can ensure greater equality of educational opportunity, it should not be trying to control 100% of the cost; in the first place, because it is not affordable, and we have seen the proof of that, and in the second place, because I truly believe we need some local tax base to ensure continued local governance.

David Crombie, even in his first report, before he wrote a second one and desperately said to the government, "Don't take over educational financing if it means you're going to dump all these other costs on to municipalities," even before he got to that point of desperation, when he was still looking at the province taking more of the share of education, said, "Keep a portion on the local tax base so that we can have local governance."

This government, any government, I say to the member for Huron, who I know is genuinely concerned about the quality of educational opportunity and funding, could meet the need for equitable funding for every student through the grant system without taking control of all funding and all decisions. It could do that if the government were truly committed to equitable funding that meets the needs of students.

But if the government were truly committed, as the minister says, to meeting the needs of every student, it would have to do something very real and very immediate: It would have to stop the funding cuts. We have just seen another $250 million cut from school boards' budgets. How can a minister talk about meeting the needs of every student in an equitable way while he cuts another $250 million from the support to those students? If he were serious about that and if this government were serious about equitable funding, they would have to stop the funding cuts and they would have to stop putting more and more of the cost of education on to the property tax base, which is exactly what has been happening for the last few years. I don't think the government's been able to convince anybody at the municipal level that the plan to take education costs off the residential property tax is a good idea given the tradeoff.

We come to the third reason why the government says, "This is a good-news bill because we are going to free dollars for the classroom." This is the argument that is calculated to appeal to those who are genuinely concerned about education. I have heard both David Cooke and Ann Vanstone, who have accepted to become consultants as they are in waiting to become the co-chairs of the educational commission that sadly is likely to become law within the hour, say that this is why they are participating, because it is going to free money, dollars for the classroom. If that were true we would all rejoice in it. It sounds great. The problem is there's nothing real to that.

I've already said the maximum projections of savings the minister can find is $150 million, less than 1% of the budget for education. I've already said that every study, including his own study, suggests that the costs under amalgamation could go up. But if I come back and just look at the $150 million and the minister's own statements about what can be found in savings, and I look at where those dollars are coming from -- I hope those who genuinely believe the minister when he says this is about dollars for education have seen this and I hope they're shocked by this -- of that $150 million the minister says he's going to take, $9.9 million of that comes directly out of classroom supplies and equipment. We've seen the school books that are being held together with elastics because they're falling apart. We've heard students talk about not being able to work on science projects because there's not enough lab equipment for them to be able to share it. Yet they're prepared to make their savings with $9.9 million directly out of supplies and equipment.

They're prepared to take $1.3 million out of educational support, the very people who provide support so children with learning challenges can be integrated into classrooms. Did they have to go there for $1.3 million of their amalgamation savings?

They're taking some $19 million out of student busing. Now they are going to take some more money out of the administration of busing. They think they can do that. This isn't administration, this is busing kids to school. It's one of those non-classroom costs that the minister somehow thinks you can do away with.

Even though I am shocked that this $150 million is actually going to be found by taking direct cuts out of the classroom, I still have to ask why any government would take on this kind of radical change for $150 million. I am absolutely convinced that it is because this government wants a lot more than $150 million. You wouldn't go through this for $150 million.

We heard the Premier last October say he needs $1 billion from education to pay for his tax cut. We have heard John Snobelen boast that he can take $1.2 billion, not for the classroom but for the tax cut. He has given no guarantees, no guarantees at all, that one penny of the savings he expects to find is going to go back into the classroom.

If this minister and this government are really looking for $1 billion more out of education, again I ask the question, what does it do to education? What does it do to public education? I know with absolute certainty -- because I've seen the effect of $400 million in cuts last year; we're starting to see the effect of $250 million more in cuts this year -- that these kinds of cuts will devastate public education.

The minister wants you to believe that's not the case. The minister wants you to believe there is tremendous waste and overspending. Again, what an easy sell that should be. Just talk about how unaccountable and irresponsible school trustees have been, how they've overspent. They take distortions. They take single examples and distort them to try and paint a picture of irresponsible spending on the part of school boards.

I'm not going to get into the minister's standard one of the Peel Board of Education and their golf course, which of course if he was being fully open about it he would acknowledge is education property held in trust and the board is trying to get some revenues to put into the classroom through the same kind of partnership that this minister talks about. I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to get into the Taj Mahal of that same board because they've got a waterfall. That's the other one the government members have been told to keep referring to if you want to show that school boards are irresponsible. I'm not going to get into the fact that when the chairman of the Peel board spoke to us, she described how that was there because it served environmental and cost-effective purposes. After all, I can't take time to deflate every single distorted example this minister has brought into this place in order to create the impression that there is waste and overspending in education.

The minister, of course, uses as a standard: "Well, we're over the national average. We're spending more than the national average on education." He distorts that figure. We are spending only slightly over the national average, not $1 billion over. I have to ask, why would Ontario be under the average, given our goals for education and given the unique needs of the Ontario student population? What kind of goal is that for a Minister of Education to have?

The minister also says, "We spend $6 billion outside the classroom, you know." Somehow we're supposed to think that represents incredible waste. It's dollars not being spent on students. I suppose it is true that we spend $6 billion outside the classroom if you don't think that schools need supervision or you don't think they need janitorial care or secretarial services or libraries or heat or light or you don't need to bus kids to school, because those are all part of the $6 billion. That, in turn, is related to this minister's idea that we're spending 46% of our resources on non-classroom expenditures. So he wants us to take that idea of 46% being spent in non-classroom and believe that's being spent in administration. In fact, the cost of administration is less than 5% of school board budgets in Ontario.

1710

Again I can come to only one conclusion on the basis of fact, and that is all of this cynical manipulation of the facts to create a sense that cuts can be made without hurting the classroom. When you add that to the government's track record of cuts to junior kindergarten -- and they did make the cuts; they cut the funding by 50% -- when you add that to the track record of cuts to adult education -- they cut the funding by 50% and they have devastated adult education in every area that was dependent on government grants to provide the educational programs for adults who need that second chance -- when you look at the cynical manipulation of the facts on the part of this minister, when you look at this minister's absolute insistence on ignoring the effect of his past cuts on class sizes and special education programs -- and he did it again today; he has forced cuts to special education, he has forced the shutdown of junior kindergarten classes, he has forced larger class sizes by the cuts that he's made -- when you look at this record, it makes me very pessimistic about this government's intentions. I can only come to the conclusion that we are bound for much larger cuts to come.

There's one more reason, reason number four, which the government offers as to why this should be seen as a good-news bill: because it is about equal funding. "This is about equity," the minister says. The minister says there will be no second-class students in Ontario. How could anybody, any of us who have committed a large part of our lives to public education, not say "amen" to that? I'm one of the ones who's not prepared to say "amen" to that when this minister says it because I am very much afraid that the agenda of this government, once it is realized, will mean that every student in this province will be a second-class student. I believe that this government will equalize funding, all right, but it will equalize it at the lowest common denominator. As one presenter said, "Equality at the lowest rung of the ladder is not progress."

I've looked very carefully and I don't believe that there is more money in the system right now than is needed to meet the needs of students. I happen to think that there are needs of students that still need to be addressed. I hear the government talk about the increase in school board spending over the last 10 years and I say yes, because past governments believed in the importance of elementary schools having small grades so that we could meet the needs of students in grades 1 and 2, and we put more into that; and because past governments, including past Conservative governments, believed that we needed to meet the special needs of students, and they put money into that; and because governments believed that adults who had to drop out of school for a whole host of reasons needed a second chance, and we put money into that. Did that increase the spending on education over the last 10 years? Yes, it did.

As somebody who is committed to public education, when I look at each of those areas, I would not apologize for that spending. It may even be that if we were prepared to truly acknowledge the needs that are there, we would understand that truly fair and equitable funding that meets the needs of every student, and I quote the minister, would mean that more money is needed in the system. I know again with certainty that quality education cannot be provided with less money and that this government's cuts are already making it impossible to meet the needs of students. When the minister stands up and says, "We are going to meet the needs of every student; let's get on with it," I simply don't believe him because I have seen no evidence that attests to anything except the opposite of that.

I would say that even if you could believe him, exactly how is the matter of equity going to be determined? That's another of the great unanswered questions. Whether you are concerned about the needs of students in what people might describe as assessment-rich Toronto or, forgive me, assessment-rich Ottawa; or whether you're concerned about equity and defining equity for the assessment-poor areas, and I know again the member for Huron has spoken of that at committee, and I respect and understand that; whether you're talking about equity for students in the separate school system, and that has been a long-standing need that has not yet been addressed; whether you're talking about equity in the new French-language boards that are going to be established, how do you determine what equity is? Under the new model, the ministry is going to determine all educational funding, and nobody knows on what basis. Again, we've asked and we've asked, "Show us the funding formula," and we can't get it.

I have asked and I ask again, how can the ministry ever develop funding formulas? The minister talks about revising his funding formulas; he talks about simplifying the funding formulas. How can you develop a funding formula that is going to address the complexity of different needs from region to region or from school to school when the minister controls all this? How is he going to decide what dollars are needed to meet the needs of the students in that particular school? I've used the example of a small school in Atikokan, St Patricks school. It's one of the isolate board schools that is totally controlled by the minister now. He pays the piper; he decides how much money; he decides how many teachers. They believe that they are short half a teacher and the grade 6 kids only have half a teacher. It has taken us months to get the Minister of Education to even acknowledge that he is responsible for that one school. I ask again, if the minister can't get it right for one small school in northwestern Ontario, how will he get it right for 5,000 schools, let alone two million students? How will he decide what is equitable to meet the needs of every student in this province?

One of the other studies done by the minister, another study by Ernst and Young: The minister went out and said, "Try and help me understand why school boards are spending so much money," and the study came back and they said, "You know, the size of a board isn't a factor that accounts for spending, so amalgamating boards is not going to solve that problem." It wasn't part of the problem anyway. What the study basically said was, again the minister's own consultants, "We don't know what accounts for the difference in spending between boards, and the ministry should go back to the drawing-board" -- that's what the consultants said -- "and get some better understanding of why some boards spend more than others and what factors are beyond a board's control." They specifically said, "Look at, for example, the number of special education students."

I suggest that until that happens, until the minister and the ministry and the government are prepared to go back to the drawing-board and understand the needs that are there and acknowledge the needs that are there and put the funding to meet those needs, there is no chance of truly fair funding that meets the needs of every student in Ontario.

There is so much more that we need to comment on in this bill because it has such sweeping consequences. There is so much more. There are so many amendments, so many concerns that are raised that I want to be able to touch on. Harmonization: How are boards going to decide which programs they keep, which programs they lose? I've touched on that. The chaos of collective bargaining: We understand that there's going to be new collective bargaining legislation coming down in a matter of weeks, so maybe we'll get some sense of the direction the government is going in that regard. The minister again last week talked about the Paroian report, the report done by his friend Mr Paroian. We've already seen that report dismissed as completely irresponsible and he is still talking about that as a basis, presumably, for the legislation he's about to introduce.

I need to talk about outsourcing because this is a concern that was raised over and over again, not just by the employees who were obviously concerned about their role in the schools and how it would be affected, but by parent group after parent group who spoke to us about their concerns that this idea that we could outsource non-instructional services like the janitorial care and the secretarial services and the library and the guidance, that we could outsource that to private sector, how parents said: "This is dangerous for our students. We're worried about the safety of our students if we have dial-a-cleaner or if we have to call in a secretary from the temporary secretarial pool, people who don't know our kids, who don't know our school."

Over and over again the parents said to us, "Every member of our school staff is an integral part of our school community. We value them. We need them. We don't need strangers here; we need people who know our kids and care about our kids and work as part of the school community."

1720

The member for St Catharines would want me to draw attention to the particularly effective presentation that was made by the educational support staff workers of the Lincoln County Board of Education, the Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Niagara South Board of Education and the Welland County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

These are the educational assistants who work with students with special needs. They are the secretaries and clerks, the youth care workers and the child care workers, the technicians and the custodians, and maintenance and groundskeepers. They say: "We are an integral part of the school environment. We believe that learning extends beyond the four walls of the classroom."

Unlike Mr Snobelen, they believe they are part of the school and the students' learning. They say: "We offer services beyond our paid responsibilities. We coach sports teams and assist with extracurricular activities and attend after-school functions and respond to last-minute emergencies. As public employees, we are directly accountable to our students, our parents, our community. Many of us have responsibilities for confidentiality as a top requirement and we understand this legal and moral obligation." Their view was echoed by every parent who presented to us.

They also say outsourcing doesn't save money. That's another thing the government wants to ignore, because there were two presentations, one from the Durham board and one from the Essex-Kent separate school board, that have actually tried outsourcing. They came back and they said, "We cancelled it because we found it cost us more money than it did to have our own personnel providing those services."

The government made one minor change in outsourcing. They were going to direct the commission to direct the boards to implement outsourcing and now they're saying, "Where it is appropriate." It is a minor change; it is an appeasement in response to the concerns that were presented, but all those parents worried about their children and about the loss of services their children need -- it should not be there; outsourcing should not be in this bill at all, because outsourcing should never be seen to be appropriate in a school community.

The other part of this bill that I must touch on -- if there should be time, what I would really like to get a chance to do is go through some of the very specific concerns and specific recommendations that were made by all the people who presented to our committee. But I cannot fail to mention the concern that was expressed over the powers given to the Education Improvement Commission. I cannot fail to mention the concerns that were raised about the lack of representation.

We don't know, apart from the two consultants who will become co-chairs, presumably, after today, who's on this commission. We don't know how the representatives will be chosen. The Franco-Ontarian members of our caucus have particularly asked me to say that people are concerned about whether there will be any provision for Franco-Ontarian representation on this commission, as the government moves to establish new French-language governance. That was a concern we heard broadly: Who is going to be on this all-powerful commission that will make these decisions?

I am also concerned, with reduced funding, with lower quality of public education, that there is a potential for charter schools here on a scale never before imagined. I come back again to what for me is one of the most frightening consequences of the loss of local governance and of funding cuts: the potential development, I think the inevitable development, of a two-tiered education system, one for those who can provide something better and another for those who can't.

If this happens, I say once again that we lose the most important value of public education: the provision of the best quality of education to every student, with regard to their special needs but without regard to their ability to pay. This concern that we are heading towards a two-tiered system and an Americanization of education was frequently expressed during our hearings and again most particularly by parents.

The lack of time to hear all these concerns, to explore them fully, the lack of meaningful response to these concerns by the government makes this so-called consultation process that I participated in for two weeks not much more than a sham. So I only hope that the about-to-be-made-legal commission, whose chairs have already begun meeting in back rooms to start the implementation, is going to listen and will advise the government on some changes the government will accept.

If one thing makes these hearings worthwhile besides the effort to maintain some semblance of democratic process, which is rapidly disappearing in this province, it is the widespread involvement of parents and the beginning involvement of students. These people have offered a passionate endorsement of their belief in public education and an equally passionate denial that the system is broken.

They are not going to let John Snobelen or Mike Harris destroy public education in this province, not at the expense of their children or anybody else's children. You are already starting to hear their voices, I say to members on the opposite side of this House, and they are not going to go away. I can only hope they are not going to be too easily discouraged, because I know they are going to find it very hard to deal with the cynicism that drives this government's agenda and this minister's approach to change.

It is sometimes hard to believe that all this is happening because Mike Harris made a campaign promise based on numbers that never added up and because John Snobelen was only too ready to do his part to help the Premier deliver, and because John Snobelen is a man who believes it is okay to do whatever he says he wants to do. The fact that things don't actually add up doesn't worry John Snobelen any more than it worried Mike Harris. Mike Harris figured he would make it work out later. John Snobelen doesn't let reality get in the way of what he wants to do. He just redefines them to make them fit; he languages, if I can use his term, a new reality.

If John Snobelen says there's $6 billion spent outside the classroom so we should be able to save $1 billion or more, then don't worry about the fact that these dollars are spent on heat and light and busing kids to school, don't let reality get in the way of your pronouncements. If John Snobelen says the system is broken, then it must be. Forget about the Bertelsmann Prize being awarded to the Durham Board of Education for being at the top of the list in an international comparison of school systems. If John Snobelen says, "We will meet the needs of every student," then you are supposed to believe it's going to happen. Don't ask what's going to happen to class sizes or school supplies or junior kindergarten or adult education or special education as he goes looking for his $1 billion, and don't pay any attention to what happened when he took his $400 million out last year.

John Snobelen, I suggest to you, is a perfect lieutenant for a revolution that has nothing to do with common sense, because he is ready to embark on change for the sake of change. He feels no need for the vision thing people keep asking about, because his concern is for the transformation itself and the $1 billion he can find bringing it about. John Snobelen will transform public education into chaos, and then, if he is not stopped, into nothingness. He will not let truth or reality or values stand in his way, because they are, after all, only the impediments of the past, and they must be overcome. Change is what matters, and any one who resists it is to be despised.

In case you're thinking, Mr Speaker, that I am making unfair attributions, I refer you to John Snobelen's own "create a crisis" speech, in which he made his management credo explicit, quite scarily so. In that speech he said that change was all about turning caterpillars into butterflies, and if you can't convince or prod the caterpillars to change, and I quote, "Occasionally, just plain running over them works."

The trustees are clearly the caterpillars to be run over with Bill 104. Teachers and other educational workers will be next, and the views and the fears of parents are being run over too. Ultimately, the real caterpillars are the students. In John Snobelen's virtual reality world, every student is to become a butterfly. In the real world of Ontario in 1997, no student is going to have a chance.

For that reason, I conclude with regret that this bill is likely to pass, but with the moving of a reasoned amendment which I have tabled:

That Bill 104, an act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards -- I'm going to forgo the rest of the title because I can't bear to read it, since it is not reflective of reality -- be returned to the standing committee on social development until such time as the following matters have been resolved:

The boundaries and trustee representation of the proposed boards are set out in regulatory form.

The changes to the financing of education are finalized and the shift of costs on to the property tax is finally determined.

The funding formula for education is set out.

The costs of amalgamating are fully analysed and understood.

The redefined roles of trustees and parent councils are clarified, including legislative changes that will be made in this regard.

1730

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): A reasoned amendment is proposed by Mrs McLeod:

"That Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability" --

Mrs McLeod: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker: Dispense? No.

-- "effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, be not now read a third time but be returned to the standing committee on social development until such time as the following matters have been resolved:

"The boundaries and trustee representation of the proposed Boards are set out in regulatory form.

"The changes to the financing of education are finalized and the shift of costs on to the property tax is finally determined.

"The funding formula for education is set out.

"The costs of amalgamating are fully analysed and understood.

"The redefined roles of trustees and parent councils are clarified, including legislative changes that will be made in this regard."

Further debate?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to be able to stand up today and have an opportunity to discuss Bill 104. I applaud my colleague from Fort William for her outstanding efforts throughout public hearings and throughout the debate, not only on this bill but on the issues that confront education, educators, students and parents throughout this province.

Bill 104, An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards etc: I'd like to take a few minutes to address accountability, to address effectiveness and to address quality.

I have had the opportunity to read this bill, to travel the province with the committee that had such limited time to do hearings, to review the government's entire agenda with respect to education, and I'd like to tell the people who are watching this debate that there are 12 sections of the bill, far-reaching sections each one of them, and each one of them addresses concerns and each one of them proposes solutions, most of which we find unpalatable.

In a close review of this bill and a review of the transcripts of the hearings, let's talk about what the bill has not addressed. In two weeks of public hearings and in no section, not one of the 12 sections of this bill, do we address the question of standards in our schools. We have not talked about whether we are providing our young people with the quality and type of education we ought to be. We have not had a debate on that. Instead we have spent our time and energy talking merely about boundaries and establishing a commission that will effectively remove the ability of parents and communities to influence education.

We have not permitted our teachers to share with us their concerns about the Education Act and about the direction that education ought to be going in. We have not talked about or debated whether our students have the right skills in English and in mathematics to prepare them for the 21st century. What we have talked about is cutting. What we have talked about is a narrow agenda whose only aim has nothing to do with quality or accountability but is to save money at the expense of a good education system.

When other jurisdictions that admittedly have governments not unlike this government are moving to increase spending, are moving to improve classroom education, we've talked about things like boundaries between communities. Why haven't we discussed standards? Because this government has no vision of the future for education. It has the vision of a tax cut. It has the vision that is narrow and doesn't understand or comprehend the importance of quality education to economic growth and development.

Why haven't we talked about ensuring that our teachers have the tools they need and our students have the teachers they need in every classroom in this province? Because the government has no idea. This government has a narrow agenda. They would rather fight with teachers than talk to teachers. They don't want to debate issues because on every count they have been wrong.

We see in the media today cooked surveys that come out about teachers and people's attitudes towards teachers. Well, the good news in those surveys was that the only person whose credibility is lower than teachers and school boards is the Minister of Education.

Yes, my friends, there will be debates around educational issues. We will not agree all the time with teachers, but we think it's more important to involve them in the debate and let them share with us their knowledge and expertise. Throughout these hearings that were conducted with respect to Bill 104, we heard time and time again from our educators: We heard them express their concerns, we heard them speak in eloquent and passionate ways about the needs of young people in this province and the needs of our education system. Instead of declaring war on those teachers, we ought to declare war on illiteracy and put those issues at the front of our agenda and not push teachers out of the debate as though they're some kind of enemy.

The government has not told us yet what its entire plan is. Will they take away the right to bargain collectively from teachers? We don't know. Will they go to regional bargaining? We don't know. But the point, and I think it's one that people in the opposition and people in general understand, is that if you want meaningful and effective change in education, you have to involve educators, you have to listen to the people who educate our children, who provide education not only to children but indeed to adults and to others.

Throughout our limited hearings, we didn't talk about whether our students could read well and independently, we didn't review the statistics with respect to literacy, we didn't have a discussion about what we can do better and how we can improve the education we provide those students. We haven't challenged ourselves or our educators to ensure that Ontario stays near the top in terms of quality of education in this great province. That is a debate that would be worthy of attention, not a debate that deals exclusively with a few school boards and some misguided notions about reinvesting money into the system.

This government has no vision of the classroom. This government doesn't understand that in modern education the classroom extends beyond teachers and chalkboards. It includes guidance counsellors, it includes libraries. The schools today are much different than they were when many of the members in this House attended them. The members of the government ought to take the opportunity to go through schools and to see those schools and see the challenges they're faced with, the challenges of the inner-city school versus the rural school, the challenge of an educator who is faced with a variety of children in his or her classroom with differing needs and differing challenges for the teacher. We haven't talked about that.

We haven't talked about improving opportunity for our teachers to improve themselves. We haven't talked about what the future should look like in terms of teachers. Oh, we created a College of Teachers in previous legislation that in effect creates the only profession that isn't self-governing, where you don't have practising members of that profession overseeing that profession, at least not a majority.

1740

I say to the government, this bill doesn't talk about teachers, it doesn't talk about whether or not we have the best teachers available in our schools and it certainly doesn't talk about our children's ability to read, write, do math and learn about computer literacy. This government has not addressed those questions. This government is more interested in cutting, cutting, cutting. I would suggest, though a balanced budget is important, what's more important is that we have the finest schools in the world, that our kids can compete with every education jurisdiction in the world so that our economy can continue to grow and provide jobs and opportunity.

We haven't talked about early childhood education. We've talked about whether there should be a school board here or there, but we haven't talked about the importance of early childhood education, the importance of junior kindergarten, for one, among other things. We haven't even talked about the role of parents in early education. Study after study after study has concluded unequivocally that early education is not only important in terms of each individual student's ability to achieve in the future but it's important in terms of society's ability to address questions that are of greater import vis-à-vis social equality.

We haven't talked about those issues in Bill 104, and we haven't talked about education. When the government suggests that Bill 104 is about accountability, effectiveness and quality, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

We haven't talked about discipline or safety within our inner-city schools. We haven't talked about providing a safe classroom and a disciplined classroom. We haven't talked about curriculum. We haven't talked about what we should be teaching our students and where we can make improvements and where we can do better; no, we haven't.

In the little time we've been given to talk about these issues, we have talked about things that are meaningless, I would submit, to parents and students but important to this government because it has set a budget policy. They promised they could balance the budget, cut income taxes 30%, not touch classroom education, not touch safe communities and policing and not touch health care. They have not been able to do it.

We know the figures in health care. We have seen hospitals recommended for closure in Thunder Bay, in Ottawa, in Toronto, in the rural areas. We have a situation in this province today where more than $400 million has been cut from the education budget, and yet at the same time this government sees as its priority giving away $5 billion in revenue at a time when we should be investing in our schools, investing in our health care system and investing in safe communities.

That's not to say that balancing a budget isn't important. This party and our party could balance a budget but would see priorities much differently in terms of where we cut, when we cut and how we cut.

The government hasn't talked about our school buildings. Well, I shouldn't say that. That's not entirely fair. They removed the freeze they put on capital spending this year. They removed the freeze. They haven't talked about the tens of thousands of Ontario students who are being educated in portable classrooms. They haven't talked about the school buildings in this province that are literally crumbling. They haven't talked about the high-growth areas of this province where there aren't enough new schools being built, where parents are either busing their children to other districts or where there are too many portable classrooms. This government hasn't addressed those questions, save and except to say that they will not address those questions in a meaningful way.

To conclude, this party, our party, challenges the government to take a meaningful approach to education, to take an approach that goes beyond simple arithmetic and looks at future needs, to take an approach that's inclusionary and visionary, an approach that will ensure that our children, and indeed our adults who need adult retraining, have access to a first-rate education from junior kindergarten through to graduating from university, an education that's accessible and affordable and the best in the world.

We say, and this party says, we can do that. The government has abdicated its responsibility in education. It has taken a narrow and self-serving financial perspective, and that is going to hurt the children of this province and hurt this province's ability to compete in the global economy of the 21st century. On behalf of our party, I say withdraw this bill and let's have a debate about education, and let's move forward posthaste with meaningful and true improvements in quality, in effectiveness and accountability of our education system.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In the few minutes that are left as a result of the time allocation motion, I'd like to put forward, on behalf of our party, our objections to the passage of this bill, Bill 104. I want to thank my friend the member for St Catharines for giving me the time. I appreciate it.

A few moments ago I was speaking to some members of the press who asked me why we attempted today to prevent the discussion on Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, when we knew that we probably could only have prevented it from going forward today and it would probably have been dealt with tomorrow if we had been successful. My response to them was that we wanted to demonstrate our complete and utter rejection of this bill. In the few minutes I have left, I want to explain why we think this bill is completely unacceptable.

I have participated in this debate, as have most members of the assembly, obviously as a member of this assembly representing the people from my constituency. I also participate in this debate as a taxpayer. I participate in this debate as a parent, as a grandparent now, and as a former educator. I participate in this debate as a spouse of a teacher.

I think, though, my concern centres on my role as a parent and a grandparent. My main objection to Bill 104 is that it does absolutely nothing to improve the education for kids in Ontario. As a matter of fact, it is going to make it possible for this government to dramatically harm the education of students if the government is so determined to take the money out, because it is going to concentrate control of the education system in the Ministry of Education and Training, control over funding and over expenditures as well as curriculum. I think that is going to have very drastic effects on the education that my little girl and my granddaughter will be able to receive in Ontario, unlike my little girl's three older brothers, who are now finished school.

I know for one thing that by the time my little girl and certainly by the time my granddaughter get to be old enough to attend junior kindergarten, there probably will not be a junior kindergarten program in central Algoma. I know that. All three of my sons went to junior kindergarten and benefited from that, but this year the Central Algoma Board of Education had to change the junior kindergarten program from an every day half-day program to an every-other-day full-day program. If they experience further cuts after this amalgamation, they will cut the program completely.

1750

The problem with this bill is that the local residents, the parents, the ratepayers will blame the local board, this new amalgamated board, for making this decision. They won't understand that the board, being given an option about junior kindergarten, will have no choice when it sees the new funding formula. That's why I object to passing Bill 104 now and why we were determined to delay it as long as possible, because we need to see the funding formula. We have to know what this government is going to do about funding education in this province before we pass this legislation.

The minister himself has said this is just the first step in a series. We understand that. But the most important step is, how much is this government going to fund for students in their classrooms across Ontario? I can tell that with the $400 million that was cut last year. We've seen the cuts across Ontario. Now, what this bill is about, essentially, is to put the minister in a position so he can get more money out of the system, particularly from Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa, boards that have not, up to now, been dependent on grants from the Ministry of Education and Training. From now on they will be. That's why it's important for us to see the funding formula before we move in this regard.

The other reason I'm opposed to Bill 104 is that I know what's going to happen as a result of this. First, the EIC, even with the draconian powers it has, is not going to be able to resolve and amalgamate all the boards, get the new administrations in place, merge all the collective agreements, merge the seniority lists, deal with the early retirements and get all that done by January 1, 1998. It's impossible. They won't get it done. We're going to have chaos in the system in January. You're going to end up with teachers who have been working under different collective agreements who are now in the same board and they'll continue under their old collective agreements. So some teachers doing the same job will be paid less than their colleagues even though they have the same employer after this bill comes into effect.

I also know what administrators and bureaucrats are going to be doing for the next two or three years: They're going to be concentrating on how to get these amalgamations in place, how to work it all out. They're not going to be dealing with how to improve education for kids; they're going to be talking about administrative problems. They're going to be negotiating with the federations about how we deal with these new collective agreements, unless the EIC is going to impose agreements on education workers and teachers.

They're going to be dealing with issues like outsourcing. I know the government withdrew the word "promote" from the bill, but it left in the word "facilitate." Well, "facilitate" means you're going to do it. So we're going to have outsourcing. Those are the kinds of things they're going to be working at.

They're going to be talking about: "How do we lay off these people? How do we contract with someone else to do this?" That will have serious ramifications for the safety of the kids, for the safety of my daughter when she eventually does get to school, if we don't have the same kind of dedicated staff, custodial and secretarial staff as well as teachers, in the schools. I fear for my daughter, I fear for my grandchild, and that's why I'm opposed to this.

We need to know what the funding formula is before. That's the most important step and that's what we need to know. We need to know what commitment the government has with regard to curriculum, what kind of effects the proposals for secondary school reform are going to have. These are things we have to know.

We are opposed to Bill 104. We're opposed to it because in some cases it doesn't make sense, it doesn't even do what Mr Sweeney proposed. Mr Sweeney talked about 88 boards; this has 66 boards. Mr Sweeney talked about four boards in Metropolitan Toronto, not one. Sweeney did not talk about the alphabet soup board in eastern Ontario. He did not suggest that Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and Prescott and Russell all be one board; he said there should be two boards.

In the same way, in the London area, he didn't say London, Middlesex, Oxford and Elgin should be all one board; he said there should be two boards. He didn't propose in northwestern Ontario that we have one board west of Thunder Bay that's the size of France. He didn't propose in northeastern Ontario that we have a board that runs all the way from Hornepayne and Hearst along Highway 7 through Timmins right into Nipissing almost to North Bay through Timiskaming.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Four hundred miles.

Mr Wildman: Four hundred miles long. When I raised this in an earlier debate, the member for Durham --

Mr Bradley: East?

Mr Wildman: Durham East, yes. I pointed out that in that particular board they would probably have the meetings in Timmins; I suspect that's where they'll have the meetings. If you're in Hornepayne, you're going to have to drive four or five hours to get to a meeting. He said, "Well, why don't they have the meetings in Hornepayne?" I suppose they could, but then all the people in Timmins would have to drive four or five hours to get to Hornepayne.

The suggestion was that perhaps we should have teleconferencing. The committee learned that in many parts of northern Ontario and other parts of rural southern Ontario they don't have the infrastructure for teleconferencing. You need five lines, apparently, for teleconferencing; in many cases, they only have two. I know that Bell Canada has said, "If you give us the money, we can get you the infrastructure." I suppose the money for that kind of infrastructure for board meetings by teleconferencing will be taken out of classroom education and that Bell will get lots of new technology at the taxpayers' expense.

In some parts of the north, of course, not only do they not have enough lines, they don't even have digital equipment; they still have rotary phones.

Mr Len Wood: Party lines.

Mr Wildman: And party lines. Imagine what it's going to be like if your neighbour happens to be a trustee and he's on your line and he's got a teleconference.

The committee understood after hearing the representations of the trustees, the parents and the students from northern Ontario areas in Thunder Bay and Sudbury that this doesn't make sense, and the standing committee voted unanimously to request that the new boundaries proposed for these new mega-boards be reviewed. First they voted for a motion that dealt with the northern Ontario boards and said the boundaries should be reviewed. Then, after all of our hearings, which ended in Midhurst in Simcoe, they voted unanimously to have all of the boundaries of all of the proposed new boards reviewed, the Metro board with 310,000 students and the rural southern Ontario boards as well as the northern Ontario boards.

I didn't think that even this government could ignore a unanimous vote of the standing committee, could ignore the wishes of their own members who were on the committee. I hope they won't. But if they simply leave it to the Education Improvement Commission to deal with, I'm worried, because the minister has not indicated that he expects there will be major changes. He said there could be some adjustments, but he has not indicated there could be major changes such as breaking up the Leeds, Grenville, Lanark, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Prescott and Russell alphabet soup board.

We are diametrically opposed to this legislation. We are diametrically opposed to the government's agenda for education. We do not accept the view that we can redefine a classroom and not count libraries, not count vice-principals and principals, not count support workers, not count psychologists and so on --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma, thank you.

The Minister of Education has moved third reading of Bill 104. Shall the bill be now read a third time?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1801 to 1806.

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

Ayes

Baird, John R.	Hardeman, Ernie	Parker, John L.
Bassett, Isabel	Harnick, Charles	Pettit, Trevor
Beaubien, Marcel	Harris, Michael D.	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Boushy, Dave	Hastings, John	Ross, Lillian
Brown, Jim	Hudak, Tim	Runciman, Robert W.
Carroll, Jack	Jackson, Cameron	Sampson, Rob
Chudleigh, Ted	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Clement, Tony	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Cunningham, Dianne	Johnson, David	Smith, Bruce
Danford, Harry	Jordan, W. Leo	Snobelen, John
DeFaria, Carl	Kells, Morley	Spina, Joseph
Doyle, Ed	Klees, Frank	Tascona, Joseph N.
Ecker, Janet	Leach, Al	Turnbull, David
Elliott, Brenda	Leadston, Gary L.	Vankoughnet, Bill
Eves, Ernie L.	Martiniuk, Gerry	Villeneuve, Noble
Fisher, Barbara	Maves, Bart	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Ford, Douglas B.	McLean, Allan K.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Fox, Gary	Munro, Julia	Wood, Bob
Galt, Doug	Newman, Dan	Young, Terence H.
Gilchrist, Steve	O'Toole, John
Grimmett, Bill	Palladini, Al

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Gerretsen, John	Morin, Gilles E.
Bradley, James J.	Grandmaître, Bernard	North, Peter
Brown, Michael A.	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Christopherson, David	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Churley, Marilyn	Kennedy, Gerard	Pouliot, Gilles
Cleary, John C.	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ramsay, David
Conway, Sean G.	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Cordiano, Joseph	Marchese, Rosario	Silipo, Tony
Crozier, Bruce	Martin, Tony	Wildman, Bud
Duncan, Dwight	McLeod, Lyn	Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 33.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1810.

23 avril 1997